Case law

Crull, Misti v. Sunderman, William

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

Standards for Qualified Immunity The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. This decision is reviewed de novo. See McGrath v. … REVERSED 12 It is not necessary, therefore, for us to consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the right that was denied was clearly established at the time the defendants acted. 28

John Doe v. Adam Gray

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person … Conclusion The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during a criminal or child wel- fare investigation.

Newsome, James v. McCabe, Helen

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2003

Claims of qualified immunity neither require nor autho- rize de novo appellate review of the evidence. … Saucier made the exis- tence of a constitutional tort the initial inquiry because it’s pointless to decide whether the impropriety of a public actor’s conduct was clearly established at the time the con- duct occurred, if

Michael Kunik and Lisa Kretschmer v. Racine County, Wisconsin

106 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1997

Viewing the case from the perspective of the law of qualified immunity, the court concluded that a reasonable officer would not have known either that the tactics in question were inherently coercive and violated clearly … established law, or that the information elicited was clearly false.

Lorena Bostic v. Salvadore Vasquez

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2025

As relevant here, the court ruled that Parsons and Judge Murray were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put them on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional. Id. at 990–94. … The court noted that Bostic could defeat the defense of qualified immunity by showing two things: first, that the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and second, that the constitutional right was clearly established

Snyder, James R. v. Nolen, Jack T.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2004

Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “for the performance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Robert Briscoe v. Stanley T. Kusper, Jr.

435 F.2d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1971

A state clearly has a substantial interest in administering its own local elections. … S.uch a defense of qualified immunity, we believe, is available to defendants in this case. Although found unconstitutional by this Court, the practices of the.

Horace E. Smith, Ii, M.D. v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Milton M. Scott, Employee of the Police Department of the City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation and Randall Darlin, Employee of the Police Department of the City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation

242 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2001

The district court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would not find that the officers violated Smith's clearly established constitutional rights. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken during a stop or arrest "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Roy Mitchell, Jr. v. Kevin Kallas

895 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Moreover, the No. 16-3350 7 court determined, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to hormone treatment when … A prison official is immune from suit if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the violation, and thus a reasonable officer would not have known that his conduct was unlawful.

Donald A. Lock v. Leo D. Jenkins

641 F.2d 488 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1981

This qualified immunity is determined by a two-part test, as described in Navarette : [I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent … We cannot conclude on the basis of these decisions that the use of tear gas here violated clearly established constitutional rights.

David Camm v. Stanley Faith

937 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2019

After briefly addressing principles of qualified and abso- lute immunity, the judge took up the merits of the malicious- prosecution claim. … Likewise, it has long been clearly established that Brady obligations extend not just to prosecutors but also to investigators. See Beaman v.

Frances J. v. Robert Wright

19 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 3, 1994

As part of the Program, the IDOA has established the “Determination of Needs Analysis” (“DONA”) test to assess the requisite level of home health-care services needed by an applicant. … The plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement from the IDOA is clearly a claim seeking retrospective relief.

Labonte, Jeffrey N. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 7, 2000

We concluded that Amwest did not qualify for the extension, and therefore the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because the regulations clearly require that the request be sent to the district director and … Lastly, LaBonte cannot establish all the elements of equitable estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Williams, Cynthia v. Heavener, Lindsey

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2000

Because of the qualified immunity enjoyed by officers performing official functions, she must show that it was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ conduct that a prosecution motivated by malice violated a person … when they acted and that they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Quint v. Village of Deerfield

365 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2010

immunity. … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right,” Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); see Gonzalez v.

Quint v. Village of Deerfield

365 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2010

immunity. … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right,” Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); see Gonzalez v.

Darrell Kincaid and Donald R. Sceifers v. Kendall I. Vail

969 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

Vail is not entitled to qualified immunity. … According to the plaintiffs, it was clearly established in 1983 that refusing to file a complaint accompanied by the proper filing fee violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right of access to the courts. 2.

Marcus Muhammad v. Del Pearson

900 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

It held that Pearson was entitled to qual- ified immunity on the unlawful entry claims because plain- tiffs failed to show a violation of clearly established law. … We approach this illegal entry claim through the lens of qualified immunity and ask whether Officer Pearson’s actions violated clearly established law.

Barbara M. Ryan and William O. Gillespie v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

185 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 1999

The first time the defendants linked their qualified immunity argument to the policymaker exception was in a second, late-filed motion for summary judgment. … Thus, even if one could say that it was clearly established in 1991 and 1992 that speech unrelated to the job was protected under Pickering , and if we considered the poetry and reincarnation beliefs to be unrelated, the

James R. Ohse v. Michael Hughes

816 F.2d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 1987

Rather, the Atcherson court ducked the question stating: Assuming without deciding that Judge Siebenmann acted as an administrator and not in his judicial capacity, we hold that he established a qualified immunity defense … to damages liability.8 Footnote number 8 reads: Because of our disposition of the qualified immunity issue, we do not reach Judge Siebenmann’s argument that his conduct in terminating Atcherson’s employment was cloaked in