Case law

Stevens v. Umsted

921 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 1, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [if] ‘[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,' ” he is immune from an action for civil damages.

Dirksen v. City of Springfield

842 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 1994

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from individual capacity § 1983 suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Plaintiff does not respond to the issue of qualified immunity raised by Defendant.

Covell v. MENKIS

574 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2008

The Defendants also allege the ambiguity bolsters their claim they are entitled to qualified immunity since any lack of clarity would show that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Fourth, the Defendants allege that qualified immunity is appropriate because it was not clearly established that the conduct in question violated Covell’s constitutional rights.

Crue v. Aiken

204 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss earlier in this case, the University raised the issue of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time in question.”

Perry v. Delaney

74 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1999

of qualified immunity. … Even if they had shown clearly established law, it is clear that Delaney is protected by qualified immunity in this case. He sent a memorandum setting out the reported violations by Perry and Zezoff.

BISBEE, BY 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). … . § 1983 , the arresting officers are immune from liability "if a reasonable police officer could have believed [the plaintiff's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Goetz v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

699 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2010

In addition, the Court denied the Defendants’ request for qualified immunity. II. … Qualified Immunity Renfrow and Mayor Davlin have invoked qualified immunity, and the Court must determine whether they enjoy qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Cathy's Tap, Inc. v. Village of Mapleton

65 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1999

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court also notes that Cathy’s Tap, which bears to burden of showing that the law was clearly established, has not even addressed Odewalt’s qualified immunity argument.

Harrell v. City of Jacksonville

976 F. Supp. 777 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 1997

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 … ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken, id., at 818 [ 102 S.Ct., at 2738 ].”

Patterson v. Illinois, Department of Corrections

35 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1999

The issue in this case clearly presents this tension. … Accordingly, the Court SUMMARILY HOLDS: (1) Defendants are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; (2) Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Odie Washington is not a proper defendant under either

Beaman v. Souk

7 F. Supp. 3d 805 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2014

the basis of qualified immunity. … Thus, because it was not clearly established that polygraph reports would have to be disclosed under Brady at the time of Defendant Warner’s alleged conduct, he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Walton v. Lyons

962 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 1997

Although the mistake was unfortunate, neither state stab utes nor case law clearly establishes a duty on the part of the State’s Attorney to correct such police records. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9005. … Therefore, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Finally, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the State’s Attorney for failing to prosecute the bar bouncer.

Purvis v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF HALL HIGH SCHOOL DIST.

599 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 12, 2009

Qualified Immunity Oest, Lunn, and Vicini assert claims of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Accordingly, the Court finds that the law was clearly established in this respect, as well, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Azeez v. Fairman

604 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 1985

The defendants are not entitled to official immunity in this case. The plaintiffs, to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, must show that their rights were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … The reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct must be measured by reference to clearly established law. No *365 other circumstances are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. Harlow v.

Hamlyn v. Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District

986 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 23, 1997

This virus attacks cells in the immune system causing a progressive impairment of the immune system. Id. Individuals whose immune system is impaired by HIV become susceptible to opportunistic infections. Id. … Clearly, they did.

McQueen v. Shelby County

730 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 1990

Nevertheless, the rule is also well established that the mere existence of some factual dispute will not frustrate an otherwise proper summary judgment. Anderson v. … If CCMHC is considered to be a “local public entity” within the meaning of the Tort Immunity Act, then the allegations of the Shelby County Defendants fall clearly within 116-105 of the act which provides neither a local

Young v. Peoria Housing Authority

479 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 1979

While an absolute judicial immunity is not available to the Board members, they do have a qualified, good-faith immunity. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Wood v. … First, they are entitled to the qualified, good-faith immunity. Plaintiff has suggested no facts that in any way indicate that these defendants acted improperly or in bad faith.

Van Houten v. Baughman

663 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1987

Therefore, we hold that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is denied on this count. (2) Immunity Defendant asserts that even if no probable … cause existed, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Zook v. Brown

575 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1983

These clearly established rights do not appear in this case. In all instances, Defendants’ actions were reviewed by competent attorneys. … The record, and the decision in this case, contradicts any conclusion that clearly established rights existed.

Predmore v. Schwartz

141 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In the interest of brevity, the Court will first consider Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, because the law is not clearly established that Plaintiff may recover damages in a § 1983 action for not being read his Miranda warnings, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. K.