-
826 F.2d 647 Seventh Circuit August 13, 1987 No. 86-2096
were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
If the undisputed facts, so read, show that the defendant’s conduct, as a matter of law, violated no clearly established legal norms, then the district court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.
-
722 F.3d 895 Seventh Circuit June 14, 2013 No. 12-3881
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.
Finding a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time of the conduct, the court denied Lendermon’s motion for summary judgment raising the qualified immunity defense. Lendermon appealed. *899 II.
Apr. 2, 2013) (non-precedential) (noting plaintiffs burden to show clearly established right and finding that burden unsatisfied where defendant had not responded to qualified immunity defense in briefing).
-
888 F.3d 259 Seventh Circuit April 19, 2018 No. 17-1898
That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson's clearly established constitutional rights.
violated clearly established rights.
The issue of whether these comments violated a constitutional right clearly established by particularized precedent seems like a pure legal question regarding qualified immunity, susceptible to our jurisdiction.
-
865 F.3d 544 Seventh Circuit July 26, 2017 Nos. 16-3560 & 16-3644
On the merits, the court ruled that both defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity because it was clearly established in the Seventh Circuit that inmates have the right to be free from deliberate indifference to a known risk
Step 2: Clearly Established Law We do have jurisdiction to review the second qualified immunity step: whether Clark’s asserted rights were clearly established at the time of his suicide.
Finally, Walker argues that the clearly established prohibition on deliberate indifference to prisoners’ and jail inmates’ risk of suicide is too general to be enforceable for purposes of qualified immunity.
-
68 F.3d 203 Seventh Circuit December 15, 1995 No. 94-3441
Defendants argue that qualified immunity should protect them because the lack of a significant injury demonstrates that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
of ‘clearly established’ law.”
Daley and McGinnis contend that they are sheltered by qualified immunity because, when they arrested Rambo, the law was not clearly established that their actions were under color of state law.
-
957 F.2d 339 Seventh Circuit June 8, 1992 No. 90-2319
from asserting the qualified immunity defense.
We first examine whether as a matter of law officers Gallion and Haloulos are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during the search of Apostol’s office violated clearly established rights.
Accordingly, if the undisputed facts of this case, so construed, indicate that the defendants’ conduct did not violate any clearly established legal standard, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
-
868 F.3d 629 Seventh Circuit August 22, 2017 No. 16-1536
The court ruled that the investigatory stop violated a clearly established constitutional right, and denied qualified immunity. Officer Newport timely appealed. I. DISCUSSION A.
Qualified Immunity Framework “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
Green has failed to meet the burden of establishing that the frisk violated clearly established law, and we find that Officer Newport is entitled to qualified immunity regarding the frisk. II.
-
933 F.3d 696 Seventh Circuit August 1, 2019 No. 17-3378
Regardless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the legal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth's alleged conduct.
Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found that Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from intentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these events, making the defendants ineligible for qualified
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that "protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
-
44 F.3d 567 Seventh Circuit January 6, 1995 No. 94-2443
immunity because their alleged misconduct in terminating McGrath did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.
“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id.
*570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.
-
149 F.3d 641 Seventh Circuit July 13, 1998 No. 97-4093
The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.
Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.
Because a reasonable officer could have believed that Kelley had committed the offense of trespass, the officers here were not acting contrary to clearly established law when they arrested her and thus are entitled to qualified immunity
-
892 F.2d 653 Seventh Circuit January 4, 1990 No. 88-2130
Hannon to defeat the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he must show that he had a clearly established property interest in continued employment with the VA. See Board of Regents v.
Hannon’s clearly established rights. Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Dr. Hannon’s claim that they deprived him of property without due process of law. C. Liberty Interest Dr.
Han- *661 non had no clearly established rights, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his claim that they deprived him of a liberty interest without due process. III. CONCLUSION Because Dr.
-
797 F.3d 468 Seventh Circuit August 13, 2015 Nos. 14-2523, 14-2808
The Court held that the cases relied upon by the Ninth Circuit panel majority were insufficient to constitute the type of clearly established law that would jettison qualified immunity.
“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 1776 .
The appellants maintain that the use of force against a subject who is not actively resisting violates clearly established law and the officers accordingly are not entitled to qualified immunity.
-
984 F.2d 787 Seventh Circuit February 25, 1993 No. 91-1933
If it were not clearly established that their conduct violated the law at the time the officials allegedly acted, then they are entitled to qualified immunity. Siegert v.
*793 With respect to Count II, the defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that any of the actions relied upon by Mr.
In this circuit, once a defendant claims qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established. Pounds v.
-
87 F.3d 900 Seventh Circuit July 1, 1996 No. 95-3085
The district court denied summary judgment on the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim, and also denied qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over the defendants’ qualified immunity appeal, see Edwards v.
Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants’ conduct did not violate “clearly established law” and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse.
In light of our conclusion that qualified immunity was proper as to the September search, it necessarily follows that using information gained during that inspection was reasonable and did not violate clearly established law.
-
910 F.2d 1449 Seventh Circuit August 20, 1990 No. 89-1479Cited by 107 Dissent · Flaum
My first disagreement concerns the majority’s denial of qualified immunity on Count III, the race discrimination claim.
Rather, I believe a court should only look to the objective facts and determine whether the actions violate clearly established constitutional rights; if not, then qualified immunity should be granted.
For these reasons, I would find that Rice’s objective actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights and would entitle him to a grant of qualified immunity at summary judgment. II.
-
895 F.2d 338 Seventh Circuit February 6, 1990 No. 89-1479
Accordingly, Rice’s motion for qualified immunity on Count V was denied for all actions after June 11, 1984, “when it was clearly established [by Altman ] that retaliation for the filing of a civil lawsuit dealing with a matter of
We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
Accordingly, because we do not reach the qualified immunity issue, we need not address Rice’s claim that it was not clearly established that the first amendment protects the filing of a civil rights lawsuit. .
-
957 F.2d 402 Seventh Circuit February 28, 1992 No. 91-1607
Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 , the standard of conduct imposed on defendants with respect to the care of people in custody was clearly established, so that the police officers’ qualified immunity defense failed
suicide risk. 6 The allegations of the first amended complaint, the depositions and pre-existing law, considered together, nullify the defense of qualified immunity in this case.
-
902 F.3d 643 Seventh Circuit August 31, 2018 No. 17-2603Cited by 29 Dissent · Ripple
It concludes, however, that we have jurisdiction to consider the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether those constitutional rights were clearly established.
Williams's constitutional rights and that those rights, considered abstractly, were clearly established at the time that Mr. Williams was apprehended.
rights of the plaintiff or whether the right violated was clearly established at the time that the defendant acted.
-
Seventh Circuit June 24, 2019 No. 18-3039Not cited Unpublished
No. 18‐3039 Page 4 As for qualified immunity, the magistrate judge concluded that Royal’s right to medical treatment was clearly established at the time of the arrest, so qualified immunity did not attach.
Without any such precedent, they argue, they could not have violated clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
In holding otherwise, the magistrate judge defined the clearly established law at a high No. 18‐3039 Page 6 level of generality instead of with the specificity that “is a necessary part” of the qualified‐immunity standard.
-
Seventh Circuit June 24, 2019 No. 18-3039Not cited Unpublished
No. 18‐3039 Page 4 As for qualified immunity, the magistrate judge concluded that Royal’s right to medical treatment was clearly established at the time of the arrest, so qualified immunity did not attach.
Without any such precedent, they argue, they could not have violated clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
In holding otherwise, the magistrate judge defined the clearly established law at a high No. 18‐3039 Page 6 level of generality instead of with the specificity that “is a necessary part” of the qualified‐immunity standard.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.