Case law

TinleySparks, Inc. v. Village of Tinley Park

181 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 2015

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the - challenged conduct.” … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the actions described above “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Gonzalez v. Tilmer

775 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

O’Quinn responds to Gonzalez’s extended detention claim by invoking a qualified immunity defense. … Under the qualified immunity standard established in Harlow v.

Hebein Ex Rel. Berman v. Young

37 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 1998

Qualified immunity does not apply. … Because defendants do not raise an issue as to clearly established law, qualified immunity as to this claim need not be further considered at this time.

Johnson v. Root

812 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 2011

It may be that with further development of a proper record, Root may establish that he is entitled to absolute immunity. … Root does not seek qualified immunity at this time.

Bills Ex Rel. Bills v. Homer Consolidated School District Number 33-C

967 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 1997

Under the qualified immunity doctrine “[g]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that: (1) the alleged conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the violation

Rubacha Ex Rel. Rubacha v. Coler

607 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 1985

Qualified Immunity As an additional ground for dismissal, defendants argue they are shielded by qualified executive immunity. They cite Davis v. … . -, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3021 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) for the proposition that damages may not be recovered from an official with qualified immunity unless the right the official allegedly violated was “clearly established at

Taylor v. Kveton

684 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1988

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, even if they used excessive force, they have qualified immunity from liability. … The principle behind qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said

Lester v. Brown

889 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1995

Qualified immunity will apply if “a reasonable officer could have believed that [the action taken was] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the infor mation the officers possessed.” Anderson v. … Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a particular right was both (1) violated and (2) clearly established at the relevant time, and the failure to sustain the burden on either prong will lead to the imposition of qualified

Fink v. Gonzalez

911 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 1996

Fink was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. … In general terms, it is well understood that qualified immunity protects gov- *335 emment officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional rights of

Delaney v. DeTella

123 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 2, 2000

Clearly Established Law To defeat the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, Delaney also bears the burden of articulating a clearly established constitutional right allegedly violated by the defendants at the time of their … The Seventh Circuit has also set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

Wilson Ex Rel. Wilson v. Formigoni

832 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 1993

Our analysis of the qualified immunity question begins with Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity Of course, the Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars the Plaintiffs procedural due process claim. We disagree.

Fields v. City of Chicago

805 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2011

“A prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill, 627 F.3d at 606 . … Under Buckley IV, Wharrie’s procurement of false statements from Hawkins did not violate Fields’s clearly established constitutional rights, thus entitling Wharrie to qualified immunity for that aspect of Fields’s claims.

Holmes v. City of Chicago

63 F. Supp. 3d 806 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2014

In short, qualified immunity works as a shield if a reasonable officer could have believed Plaintiffs arrest to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information that Herrera, Matich, 'and Coffee possessed … Callahan, two questions are pertinent to the defense of qualified immunity: whether the alleged facts show that the state actor violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Fittanto v. Children's Advocacy Center

836 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1993

defendant’s facts supporting qualified immunity). … In addressing defendants' qualified immunity argument, the Seventh Circuit articulated the standard as one protecting officials for all but violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Matthews v. Peters

818 F. Supp. 224 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1993

qualified immunity doctrine requires. … It is of course true that the standard for qualified immunity turns on whether the legal rules that the official is alleged to have violated were “clearly established” when the official acted (Harlow v.

Levin v. Madigan

41 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is designed to allow government officials to avoid the burdens of litigation when the law is not clearly established, and relieving officials of those burdens in turn confers a benefit on society as a whole … Although this Court previously expressed its doubt that the qualified immunity defense applies at all to procedural uncertainty, that is, uncertainty over whether a § 1983 cause of action for a clearly established substantive

Doe v. Thomas

604 F. Supp. 1508 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1985

Defendants have established, as a matter of law, both prongs of the qualified immunity test. First, taking someone into custody is clearly within the scope of a police officer’s authority. … The second question of the Harlow qualified immunity test, requiring a demonstration of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, is answered in the negative.

Hudson v. Burke

617 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1985

Alderman Burke’s Qualified Immunity Does Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims For Damages. … The standard for qualified immunity was set down in Harlow v.

McDade v. City of Chicago

264 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 2003

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded, Lanigan, 110 F.3d at 471 ; the defendants did so in their answer.

Gamboa v. Washington

716 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 1989

If those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly-established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The question of qualified immunity here is a close one, but we do not believe that the present record clearly establishes that the district manager position reasonably could be viewed as a confidential position— or at least