Case law

Wozniak v. Adesida

368 F. Supp. 3d 1217 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018

Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right "was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right "was clearly established at the time the challenged *1255

Wysocki v. Crump

838 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2011

Finally, Defendant asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that suspending T.W. after hearing Plaintiffs complaint would violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ryan v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

963 F. Supp. 1490 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that even if the speech is protected and even if the speech survives the balancing test, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … with department procedures because the law was clearly established in 1991.

Smith v. United States

723 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1989

In the case at bar, the statutory and constitutional rights which Defendants allegedly violated were clearly established and a reasonable person would have known of them. … Thus, the Defendants are not entitled to rely on a defense of qualified immunity in this case.

Bey v. Cimarossa

36 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 19, 1999

Qualified immunity attaches if an officer’s conduct does not violate a “clearly established” right of which “a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Alternatively, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to show the existence of any clearly established law of which the officers should have known when they acted.

Hoffman v. DeWitt County

176 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2016

; (3) Markwell does not have qualified immunity in his individual capacity because clearly established in the law prohibits Markman’s alleged retaliation against Hoffman; (4) Markwell does not have immunity under the Noerr-Pennington … Markwell is not protected by qualified immunity because his alleged actions violate clearly established law.

McGarvey v. Biswell

993 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy immunity from personal liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To conclude that the search and arrest in this case violated clearly established law based on the uninterpreted language of these statutes would rim afoul of the principle that “public officials are entitled to immunity unless

Hagan v. Quinn

84 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity does not defeat a claim for injunctive relief, as Plaintiffs point out.

Bisbee ex rel. Bisbee v. Reynard

29 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1998

Furthermore, district courts cannot establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir.1995). … Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden of showing the existence of the clearly established constitutional right. Id.

Star v. Gramley

815 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 26, 1993

Regardless, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff has no clearly established right to cross-dress in prison. … Regardless, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff had no clearly established right to cross-dress in prison.

Perez v. Lane

794 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1992

Officials cannot receive qualified immunity if their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Conner v. … That Hispanics are protected from discrimination under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is clearly established, and a reasonable person would have known this.

Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n

372 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2019

and its officials are shielded by the veil of qualified immunity. … But these special policy concerns also made qualified immunity improper for municipal corporations.

Doe 20 v. Board of Education of the Community Unit School District No. 5

680 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2010

person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.’ ” Gonzalez v. … The Court further believes that the right violated was clearly established.

Thornburg v. Peters

155 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 28, 2001

Second, they assert qualified immunity because the law in 1997 did not clearly establish that they could not use political party affiliation as a qualification to hire an ISI II. … The Defendants also are not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense.

Finsel v. Hartshorn

200 F. Supp. 2d 960 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 25, 2002

Cruppenink argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … As noted, qualified immunity applies unless the defendant violated a “clearly established” constitutional right.

Hagan v. Quinn

838 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) the violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Speagle v. Ferguson

852 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”). II. … Count II is based on an alleged decision — the decision to charge Plaintiff allegedly without probable cause — that clearly falls under the shield of absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v.

Myers v. Hasara

51 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 1999

liability based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Armato v. Grounds

944 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 1, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Danyus v. Slama DeRosa

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 2021

Wolf also claims she is entitled to qualified immunity because she had no personal involvement in the investigation. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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