Case law

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.

Myers v. Brunsvold

617 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 22, 2009

immunity. … The Plaintiffs cannot show that the Defendants' actions violated clearly established law, when the Plaintiffs were laid off for budgetary reasons.

Smith v. Boyle

959 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 16, 1997

Second, Defendants assert that the Illinois State Board of Elections enjoys immunity from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. … The Court also finds that Defendant Illinois State Board of Elections is immune from this suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Winfrey-Bey v. Shreve

District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 9, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established [] constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to meet his “burden of demonstrating that his rights were clearly established to overcome qualified immunity.” Tate v. Carr, JDP-20-302, 2023 WL 4234704, at *8 (W.D.

Gehrt v. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cooperative Extension Service

974 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1997

Moreover, the explicit text of § 1981a establishes a direct tie to Title VII, a tie which is so close that § 1981a is virtually meaningless without Title VII. … I therefore recommend that the court find that Congress did clearly intend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to abrogate State immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. 2.

Lewis v. Harris

965 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 1997

“To have a property interest [in public employment] a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Nevertheless, “[t]o establish a property interest in a probationary pohce officer’s employment with a pohce department, the municipality must establish procedural requirements for termination of those officers.” Id.

Hipes v. Judge

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2020

State actors performing discretionary functions are protected by qualified immunity when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the official’s alleged

Wirey v. Richland Community College

913 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2012

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA in the employment context, a plaintiff must prove that 1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, 2) she is qualified to perform the essential … “A retaliation claim requires proof of discriminatory or retaliatory intent, which can be established directly or indirectly.

Wilhite v. Illinois Power Co.

139 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2001

If an employer does not qualify as a loaning employer under the first test, there is a second test. … Thus, the Court will only allow Illinois Power’s Motion For Summary Judgment if Illinois Power can clearly establish that Matthew Wilhite was a borrowed employee. 1.

Libbra v. City of Litchfield, Ill.

893 F. Supp. 1370 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 1995

law and (2) that this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … Clearly, the content of such signs is not protected under the First Amendment. See Brenner v.

Wilson v. City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2020

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 … Therefore, qualified immunity shields Wangard from liability only if the constitutional right he is alleged to have violated was not clearly established when Wangard made the statements about Wells.

Hicks v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2022

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … Defendants raise, and are entitled to, the qualified immunity defense as to this claim because the Department’s Code of Conduct did not violate clearly established law.

MATRISCIANO v. Walker

417 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2006

Finally, Defendants contend that even if the Plaintiffs speech was protected, it was not clearly established that it was protected; therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because political affiliation was determined to be a legitimate requirement of the job, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. 5.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. White

627 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2009

In the Court’s opinion, there are not enough facts established in this particular case to determine whether discretionary immunity applies. … White’s conduct clearly falls into this latter category. Accordingly, the Court will recommend dismissal of the respondeat superior claims against the School District based on White’s misconduct.

Risper

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 8, 2025

C Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 would have

Simpson v. Tri Valley Community Unit School District No. 3 an Illinois Local Governmental Entity

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 2020

Since there was no constitutional violation and no clearly established right was violated, Defendants conclude they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … right was clearly established at the time of the search.

Alexander v. City of Danville Illinois

District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 3, 2022

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … Therefore, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is met.

Ruppel v. Ramseyer

33 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 1999

If a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for DUI, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Kelley, 149 F.3d at 648 ; Edwards v. … This interpretation is also consistent with the well established case law cited previously by this court.

Drew v. Collins

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2025

Plaintiff does not cite a single analogous case which suggests the DCFS Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage is consistent with the Supreme Court's directive to resolve immunity issues at the earliest possible time “because qualified immunity

Mathews v. United States

550 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 9, 2007

are “a significant number of instances in which a defendant is convicted under a state statute that encompasses multiple categories of offense conduct, some of which would constitute ‘violent’ felonies, and some of which clearly … In this case, Petitioner’s claim fails because, contrary to his argument, the record clearly shows that his counsel strenuously challenged this court’s determination that Petitioner should be sentenced under the Armed Career