Case law

Estate of James Franklin Perry v. Cheryl Wenzel

872 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

As a result, qualified immunity is not a bar to  Perry’s suit.  … If  the  right  was clearly established, then qualified immunity is not a bar  to suit. Washington v. Haupert, 481 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Jason Findlay v. Jon Lendermon

722 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2013

Because Findlay has not carried his burden of showing the violation of a clearly established right, Lendermon is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background A. … But qualified immunity requires the plaintiff to produce a case “clearly establish[ing] [the right] in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.” Abbott v.

Shontay Humphries v. Milwaukee Coun

702 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 26, 2012

The Supreme Court held in Pearson that a court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists. … As the plaintiff, Humphries has the burden of defeating the qualified immunity defense that the defen- dants raised, so she must show that the due process right she asserts was clearly established by prior case law.

Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

967 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2020

Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well‐ pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not “state a claim of vi‐ olation of clearly established law.” … that the plaintiffs stated a claim for a violation of a clearly established right, barring qualified immunity at this point in the litigation.

Cory D. Chan, Cross-Appellee v. Edward S. Wodnicki, Individually and in His Former Capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department

123 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 29, 1997

It held that he was *1008 entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Officer Chan’s transfer, it was not clearly established that the transfer constituted a burden sufficiently grave to constitute an infringement … The official is entitled to this immunity if, at the time he acted, he reasonably could have determined that his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Anderson v.

Regina Warlick, Cross-Appellant v. Herman Cross, Cross-Appellee

969 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1992

the court can base its legal determination of qualified immunity. *306 Rakovich v. … to qualified immunity.

Lelah Jerger v. Shannon Blaize

41 F.4th 910 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2022

If the facts, as represented by the Jergers, portray a clearly established constitutional viola- tion, the district court’s decision cannot stand. See Taylor v. … Of course, “specificity is im- portant” in defining clearly established law, but there need not be “a case presenting the exact same facts” for defendants to be on notice that their behavior violates constitutional rights.

Becky Chasensky v. Scott Walker

740 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity because they have violated no clearly established privacy right. iii.

Julian Nettles-Bey v. Philip Williams

819 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2016

The  district  judge  thought  that  this  suit  presents  a  triable   issue   not   because   of   any   doubt   about   the   law—the   judge   deemed   it   clearly   established   that   an   officer   may   not   arrest … That’s   the   qualified-­‐‑immunity   issue:   Whether   it   is   clearly   estab-­‐‑ lished   that   federal   law   (statutory   or   constitutional)   forbade   the   public   employees   to   act   as   they   did.  

Bryan Hinnen v. Thomas E. Kelly and Other Unknown Named Agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

992 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1993

But the court found the law on probable cause was in a state of flux at the time of the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant, and therefore, Kelly was entitled to qualified immunity since plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly … We affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit because of Kelly’s qualified immunity.

Moss v. Martin

614 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

Defendants’ motion relied on qualified immunity, and so that is what the district court focused on. … It recognized that there are two elements of a qualified immunity claim—first, that the defendants violated Moss’s constitutional rights, and second, that those rights were clearly established at the time the defendants acted—and

Ronnie Rice v. James Burks and Mark Harvey

999 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1993

Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Howard Harrell and Sarah Harrell v. Donald Cook, Jack Woods, John Keenan, and a Police Officer Unknown To

169 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 17, 1999

immunity, because the Harrells faded to allege a violation of a clearly established federal right. … The court further found that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and hence the defendants were not protected by qualified immunity.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Shearl Danenberger v. J. Thomas Johnson, Mark Frech and Bill Fleischli

821 F.2d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1987

Supreme Court stated that “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. at 3018 (quoting … prior to Hermes , and, thus, the defendants in this case would still be entitled to qualified immunity since any such right enunciated in Hermes was not previously clearly recognized.

Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley

10 F.4th 725 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2021

vi- olated was not clearly established. … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Gloria Taylor v. City of Milford

10 F.4th 800 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2021

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When assessing a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, we ask: “whether the plain‐ tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of defendant

Michael W. Alvarado v. Ronald D. Picur, Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Curry, 1

859 F.2d 448 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 1988

We reverse because Curry had qualified immunity. … Thus whether Curry is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective reasonableness of his actions in those thirty minutes, as assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” on November 22, 1985

Daniel P. And Eunice A. Leclair v. Lawrence R. Hart and Thomas Larson

800 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1986

We further note that defendants Hart and Larson are covered by qualified immunity unless their alleged actions on November 10, 1982, violated clearly established law at the time that Hart and Larson acted. … Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners, 747 F.2d 139, 148 (3d Cir.1984) (no qualified immunity if the defendant violates “a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a

Paul E. Sherman v. Four County Counseling Center, Douglas Cox, Cass Superior Court Judge, and Gary Boyles, Officer

987 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1993

We believe these facts establish that Boyles is entitled to qualified immunity. … He also argues that even if Four County is entitled to qualified immunity, it violated his clearly established right to refuse anti-psychotic medication.