Case law

Santiago v. Daley

726 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1989

And that question clearly calls for a “no” answer. It was first presented to the Illinois Court of Claims almost exactly a half century ago, and here is what that court said in Cram v. … reimburse or indemnify a public official against Section 1983 liability does not bootstrap the situation into one triggering the State’s sovereign immunity (Duckworth v.

Lindstrom v. State of Ill.

632 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 18, 1986

Lindstrom states that his Church “is an established church, associated with tens of thousands of people throughout the United States, and with deep-rooted Calvinistic religious beliefs.” … The sixth amendment clearly does not apply because Rev. Lindstrom has not been charged with any crime.

Olinger v. Doe

163 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 2001

But it is important to note that, in Green , the defendant’s employees clearly asked the police to arrest the plaintiff. Green, 77 Ill.App.2d at 31 , 222 N.E.2d at 136 . … (“the Tort Immunity Act”). Courts that have considered whether the Tort Immunity Act applies to the CTA and have held that the Act specifically excludes the CTA. See Slaughter v. Rock Island City Metro.

Vinegar v. Braggs

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 2019

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … qualified immunity.

Safari Childcare Inc v. Penny

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also raise a qualified immunity defense, arguing that the law around class-of-one violations is not clearly established enough to put … “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Met-L-Wood Corp. v. SWS Industries, Inc.

594 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 1984

But in any event our Court of Appeals has made it clear in two recent cases that nearly anything beyond solicitation qualifies as the transaction of business. Deluxe Ice Cream Co. v. R.C.H. … It should be pointed out, though, SWS never names the general contractor or states the underlying facts rendering the contractor and its employees immune to process here.

Sutton

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 18, 2025

However, if the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not “state a claim of violation of clearly established law,” a court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. Hanson v. … More specifically, J.L. clearly establishes conditions under which an anonymous call is insufficient for reasonable suspicion.

Barbaccia v. Village Of Lombard

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 29, 2020

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity “for conduct that ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” at the time of the conduct in … That being said, in some cases, even though a grant of qualified immunity is not appropriate at an early stage in the case, after discovery, facts may emerge that would make a grant of qualified immunity appropriate.

Cole v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University

38 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2014

However, as in Rickman, demotion and suspension decisions are clearly within the scope of Cole’s supervisors’ employment, and thus sovereign immunity blocks the claims in Count V based on the Whistle-blower Act. … Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 224 (7th Cir.1993) (“In effect [plaintiff] is arguing that a state cannot waive its sovereign immunity in part; if the state doesn’t want to be sued in federal court, it can’t establish a court of claims

Dukes v. City Of Freeport Illinois

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2022

Law enforcement “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the … In the false arrest context, an “officer who makes an arrest is entitled to qualified immunity if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

A.T. v. County of Cook

613 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 2, 1985

They allege that these detentions have occurred continuously well over a year, thus bolstering their allegation that the custom is well established. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (city does not share qualified immunity defense of its officers); Coleman, supra, 470 F.Supp. at 681 (county does not share immunity enjoyed by defendant

Van Dyke v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity where (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional rights and (2) the statutory or constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at … When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that her allegedly violated constitutional right was “clearly established” in a “particularized sense.” Lewis v.

MacH Mold Inc. v. Clover Associates, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 2005

The City argued that it was immune under the Tort Immunity Act; the home buyers contended that issuing permits was a ministerial function for which there was no immunity. … Tort Immunity Act.

Gulla v. Chicago State University

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2025

Due Process Gulla also asserts a due process claim, alleging that he held a “constitutionally protected and clearly established property interest in his continued education … If so, immunity attaches. Id.

Jones v. Village of Villa Park

815 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 1993

In the instant case, the uncontradicted facts set forth in defendants’ 12(M) statement establish that -Officer Bernardo had probable cause to arrest Jones. … This use of force, however, was clearly warranted and reasonable under the circumstances confronting Bernardo at the time of the arrest.

Munn v. City of Aurora

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity (Count II) Defendants assert that Osberg is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions and thus, the Court should dismiss Count II. … Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.

Clements v. City of Elgin

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Jensen would be entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim asserted against him if the Estate cannot show that his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right such that he was on notice

Northen v. City of Chicago

841 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1993

See Doe, 788 F.2d at 422 (because plaintiff may be able to establish that she should be covered under Title VII, district court should not have dismissed case at pleading stage). … Compare 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12 (referring to "qualified individual with a disability") and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (referring to "an individual”).

Gardley v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 11, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages to the extent that his conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Horton v. Marovich

925 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 1996

is complying with the mandates of Gomez, 811 F.2d at 1039 (complaint should be viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff), and Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. at 102 (court may dismiss complaint only if plaintiff clearly … For Horton to establish the basis for his damages claims, he necessarily would have to demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction and imprisonment. See Heck, — U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2369 .