Case law

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

305 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman, 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

Murray v. Poani

980 N.E.2d 1275 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity ¶ 33 Defendants contend if we conclude the trial court erred in determining no issue of material fact exists, we should hold plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. ¶ 34 … the constitutional right was clearly established.

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

Parkway Bank & Trust v. City of Darien

43 Ill. App. 3d 400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1976

On this basis an award of damages against public officials with qualified immunity “would be inimical to the efficient functioning of government.” (Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, 404 F. Supp. 148, 159 .) … Supp. 148, 159 , states that even where government officials are granted qualified immunity they are still absolutely immune “to damages in the absence of malice ° * * whenever at the time of the action a substantial question

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Redwood v. Lierman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … The majority's rule requiring a warrant is not only not clearly established, it is not the law. Qualified immunity applies.

Glover v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2023

In such situations, the only relevant immunity provision is section 2-202 of the Act, which provides qualified immunity to public employees for acts or omissions “in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such … Additionally, unlike section 4-102, the immunity afforded under section 2-202 is qualified rather than absolute; a police officer is entitled to immunity under the provision unless the officer’s conduct was “willful and

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7

283 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

On July 20, 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing as one ground for dismissal section 8—101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which establishes a one-year limitation period for actions commenced against local public … Although the Tort Immunity Act clearly establishes a one-year limitation period for actions filed against local public entities, in addition to following the statute of limitations applicable to an action, we must also follow

McGee v. Snyder See also Supplemental Opinion Upon Denial of Rehearing - filed Nov. 7, 2001

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants' conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Grundy v. Lincoln Park Zoo

957 N.E.2d 441 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 1, 2011

However, in an appeal considering certified questions, Talandis does not apply directly, because ruling in favor of the appellant who establishes a prima facie case would entail not ordering a case- specific … As we indicated above, the supreme court has rather clearly indicated that a movable, nonaffixed item may constitute a “condition” of real property under section 3-106.

Wright-Young v. Chicago State University

2019 IL App (1st) 181073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 8, 2020

. ¶ 77 To prove discretionary immunity, a defendant “must establish that the act or omission giving rise to the injuries was both a determination of policy and an exercise of discretion.” … Qualified Immunity ¶ 82 In the trial court, the Board also asserted qualified immunities—under sections 3-108 (745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2012) (providing qualified immunity for the supervision of an activity

Ellis v. Flannery

2021 IL App (1st) 201096 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2021

She argues that the circuit court ignored her motion for default judgment and erroneously dismissed her complaint based on judicial immunity, even though “defendant is clearly not protected under this doctrine … App. 3d 353, 355 (1995)). ¶ 12 Here, the orders defendant entered were clearly judicial acts, and neither of the two exceptions to judicial immunity are present.

Masters v. Murphy

2020 IL App (1st) 190908 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2020

Therein, Murphy argued that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) because she had either absolute or qualified immunity under sections 2-204 and 2-210 of the Tort Immunity … Murphy was clearly within the time and space confines of her position as a correctional officer.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … "But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Washington v. City of Evanston

336 Ill. App. 3d 117 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 19, 2002

Kloempken’s immunity from civil liability pursuant to the EMS Act and then consider St. Francis Hospital’s immunity. In 1996, St. … Francis Hospital’s SOPs or the established guidelines for breech delivery. The record shows that Dr.