Case law

Reese v. Doe

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 2023

right, and (2) the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Further, Plaintiff has made no showing that his right to be free from the force used by Defendant in this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Gadson v. Newman

807 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 1992

Thus, the issue before the Court: whether the practice of medicine qualifies as trade or commerce for the purposes of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. … The fact that a wrongdoer must engage in “trade or commerce” to be liable under the Act is well established.

Dreyer v. McCall

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 16, 2021

A constitutional right is “clearly established” for qualified-immunity purposes where “the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … Thus, even if McCall’s use of force was excessive (it clearly was not), McCall would still be entitled to qualified immunity.

Yocum v. Dixon

729 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1990

“Few doctrines were more solubly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction----” Pierson v. … Judges Baker, Mihm, Ackerman, and Lessen are therefore clearly immune from liability under section 1983 for any action within the sphere of their offices.

Mishaga v. Schmitz

136 F. Supp. 3d 981 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2015

to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a: system of Firearm .Owner’s Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable … of Ohio, could never qualify under Exception 10.

In Re Wimmer

129 B.R. 563 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 19, 1991

It is also accepted that the settler of the trust cannot establish the trust for his or her own benefit. Id. at 864 (emphasis added). … Furthermore, the Illinois statute in this case clearly “relates to” an employee benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a).

Mutual Medical Plans, Inc. v. County of Peoria

309 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2004

The first Croiuley factor, whether the government knew of or acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, clearly weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs. … Legal history aside, the policy reasons for absolute grand jury immunity are also persuasive.

Jones v. Edgar

3 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 7, 1998

LEGAL STANDARDS It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. … Because the court finds that the plaintiff has no cause of action against either defendant, the court need not reach the parties’ dispute over the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. III.

Walker v. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis

726 F. Supp. 211 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 1989

Congress considered these *217 matters when it enacted the legislation— the excerpts from the legislative history cited by both courts clearly establish that Congress considered this question from every angle. … In this regard, 12 U.S.C. § 2202a requires that qualified loans be restructured rather than foreclosed upon.

Salaymeh v. St. Vincent Memorial Hospital Corp.

706 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 1989

Immunity Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment based on an Illinois statute which provides immunity for hospitals and individuals against civil liability for their actions in the peer review process. … In conclusion, we are clearly persuaded that Defendant must prevail.

Rayford v. McLean County

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they clearly violated LaVonte’s Fourteenth … Qualified immunity shields a public official unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Haynes v. United States

237 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 2017

A case the Government cites in its opposition brief makes this point clearly. … Although the evidence need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense, it must establish that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date charged.

Volk v. Coler

638 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 1986

Even under a lenient standard of causation, and more clearly under a strict “but for” test, Plaintiff’s proof does not establish the critical elements of causation and personal involvement with respect to Coler. … Clearly women are such as class; the mere fact that the Plaintiff is a woman does not, however, establish class-based animus.

St. Vincent Memorial Hospital Corp. v. Shalala

827 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1993

Vincent to MIL qualify as “capital-related” costs, the hospital may be separately reimbursed for such payments. … A qualifying license is one 'permitting a hospital to use a piece of depreciable equipment.

United States v. Moore

911 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 5, 1996

To the contrary, all the evidence indicated clearly that Moore refused to testify due to his fear of Furkin. … The Government, however, chose not to pursue that path and instead granted Moore immunity. .

In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation

293 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2003

Wilson and Andreas respond that because there was never any prosecution or grant of immunity with respect to either citric acid or fructose, the possibility of future jeopardy is very real. … The court should make its determination through the examination of more traditional tests, such as statute of limitations, immunity, or double jeopardy. Id. at 872 .

Piquard v. City of East Peoria

887 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 1995

To be “qualified individuals] with a disability,” Plaintiffs must establish that they are each an individual with a “disability” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2) of the ADA. … To prove they are disabled under the ADA, Plaintiffs must establish two components. First, they must show that they are persons having a qualifying physical or mental impairment. Flasza v.

Griffin v. Coler

667 F. Supp. 1233 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1986

Statements in the majority opinions in these three cases indicate that the Eleventh Amendment grants states immunity from federal court jurisdiction in all suits except those in which one of the well-established exceptions … Recent scholarship indicates that the framers never intended to constitutionalize the doctrine of state sovereign immunity; consequently, the Eleventh Amendment was not an effort to re-establish, after Chisholm v.

Winkelman v. Magne

173 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 2001

However, Winkelman is clearly incorrect as this is not the state of the law. … Again, the Seventh Circuit has clearly held that “[wjhatever may be the case under labor and civil rights statutes, Mt. Healthy establishes the approach for litigation under the first amendment.” Gooden v.

Hamlyn v. ROCK ISLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN

960 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1997

The application form explicitly states: "WHO DOES NOT QUALIFY: [] Applicants whose sole disability is [] AIDS." … Cuomo, 743 F.Supp. 977, 996-97 (N.D.N.Y.1990), monetary compensation would most likely not have been available because of the defendants' claims of qualified immunity.