Case law

Armstrong v. Corn Belt Bank

55 B.R. 755 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 11, 1985

Armstrong a non-farmer, thereby qualifying him for involuntary bankruptcy provisions, and the second (issued some 2 years later) finding him a Chapter 7 debtor subject to involuntary bankruptcy. … Armstrong was not generally paying his debts as they became due was clearly erroneous.

Hoedebecke v. The City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 2022

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. i. … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is easily met for Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest claim.

Chester Bross Construction Co. v. Schneider

886 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 2012

See Verizon Md., Inc., 535 U.S. at 645 , 122 S.Ct. at 1760 (finding that a suit for injunctive relief seeking that state officials be restrained from enforcing an order in contravention of controlling federal law “clearly … Additionally, the proceedings before IDOT, unlike the proceeding in Grandco, are before an “established adjudicatory body.” Id. at 206.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

641 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1986

Clearly, the plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a cause of action regarding a violation of the Guarantee Clause. … In Pennhurst, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit by a citizen against a state without a state’s consent or Congressional abrogation of the state’s immunity.

Mellenthin v. The County of McDonough

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2024

Alternatively, they argue that Schmalshof is entitled to qualified immunity “because there is no clearly established federal law that precluded [his] actions.” Id. at 2. … But it concludes that she has failed to meet her burden of establishing that Schmalshof violated clearly established law. Plaintiff’s argument as to qualified immunity is short and confusing. See Resp. Mot.

Santana v. McDonough County

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2022

Accordingly, Murfin is entitled to qualified immunity on Santana’s excessive force claim. B. … The Court’s finding that Murfin’s use of force did not violate clearly established law means that Mappin is entitled to qualified immunity on Santana’s failure to intervene claim. See Lewis v.

Kibler v. United States

46 F. Supp. 3d 844 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 2014

Supreme Court found that legislative history of the immunity provision demonstrated that “the sweeping language of § 702c was no drafting inadvertence” and that “Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign … The basis for application of § 702c immunity established in James was revisited by the Supreme Court in Central Green .

Walch v. Morgan

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2024

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To defeat Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that the alleged violation of their constitutional rights was “clearly established.” Id.

Held v. Decatur Memorial Hospital

16 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1998

The burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 . Plaintiff contends that this court has jurisdiction based upon the Act. … The Act provides statutory immunity from damage liability for those persons engaged in qualified professional peer review. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11111 (a), 11112(a); Addis, 88 F.3d at 485 .

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

185 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 15, 2002

To establish a prima facie case for failure to promote, Plaintiff must show: (1) Olson was a member of a protected group; (2) Olson applied for and was qualified for the position; (3) Olson was rejected for the position; … This court notes that there is clearly a question in this case regarding whether Plaintiff can show the second element, that she was qualified for the position.

Williams v. Haleighs Hope, Inc

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2023

Generally, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated clearly established law … But as made clear above, that is not the only method to show a violation of clearly established law. “[B]inding precedent is not necessary to clearly establish a right.”

Murrhee v. Principi

364 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 2005

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States may not be sued without its consent. Hercules, Inc. v. … United States, 852 F.2d 1469 , 1471 n. 3 (7th Cir.1988) (“Section 211(a) clearly precludes our review of the Administrator’s decision to set benefits and disability levels”) (Marozsan I).

Runkel v. City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2019

Plaintiff also argues that Langfelder is not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly established at the time Plaintiff was not promoted that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of race in … To counter a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Yoggerst v. Stewart

571 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 22, 1983

In determining whether an official is entitled to a grant of immunity the court must decide whether his conduct, at the time it was undertaken, violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Moreover, if a federal district judge would determine on the facts of this case that no constitutional violation had occurred, it seems eminently reasonable that a lay person could not have violated a clearly established

Spence v. Holesinger

693 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 29, 1988

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIM OF INTRA-MILITARY IMMUNITY In their Motion, Defendants claim that the doctrine of intra-military immunity *706 bars the Plaintiffs claims for monetary-damages against his military supervisors and co-workers … Defendants first state that it is well-established law that there is no right to enlist in the armed forces. West v.

In Re Boldman

157 B.R. 412 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 7, 1993

The Seventh Circuit in Matter of Boomgarden, 780 F.2d 657 (7th Cir.1985), states: “[W]e must accept the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.... … Based on the established case law, the Court finds that in the case at bar, Appellees’ claim for attorney’s fees is property of the estate. Finally, the IRS argues that § 362(h) does not apply to the United States.

Simmons v. Legner

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 2021

Defendants are otherwise entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions. Purtell v.

Christison v. Slane (In Re Silldorff)

96 B.R. 859 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 17, 1989

The Goff court then noted that while ERISA clearly preempts state law, 29 U.S. C. § 1144(a), it is clearly not intended to affect the operation of other federal law. … differences between the plans clearly affect the degree of control which the debtor has over the plan.

Cave v. City of Springfield Illinois a Municipal Corporation

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “clearly established,” such that a reasonable officer would have known his conduct was unlawful.

Carranza v. Pool

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 2022

Put another way, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity . . . unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. i.