Case law

Douglas v. Village of Palatine

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2021

Government officials are immune from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, to surmount the barrier of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s use of force was “objectively excessive from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the

Offutt v. Kaplan

884 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 1995

Moreover, federal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts. See Koll v. … granted guardian ad litem absolute immunity.

Conley

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2026

Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show that they violated clearly established law by either identifying closely … And his reliance on district court cases is unavailing as they don’t clearly establish the law under qualified immunity. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir. 1995).

Chukwu v. Air France

218 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2002

This most certainly qualifies as commercial activity within the United States under the FSIA, regardless of plaintiffs theory of recovery. … In other words, a claim is "based upon” commercial activity in the United States if that activity establishes a legal element of the claim. Id. See also Saudi Arabia v.

Lowe

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, provides additional protections for the Officers. … Defendants argue that they used reasonable force, and in the alternative, qualified immunity applies.

Scott Aviation, Inc. v. DUPAGE AIRPORT AUTHORITY

393 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 24, 2005

Plaintiffs allege that they invested millions of dollars in establishing their business at the Airport. … State Action Immunity (Count I) DAA argues that Count I is barred under the doctrine of state action immunity.

Fried v. United States

579 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 1983

There is clearly Art. Ill power to hear the pendent claims raised by plaintiff in the present case. The claims against the United States and the state law defendants arose out of a single accident at the Laboratory. … Though the University and the Association together are to establish “general guidelines concerning personnel policy,” it is obvious from Art.

United States Ex Rel. Wade v. Cooper

965 F. Supp. 1140 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 1997

Section 2254(d)(l)’s reference to clearly established federal law “as determined by the Supreme Court” means that the court “must look exclusively to Supreme Court caselaw in reviewing a petitioner’s claim.” Sweeney v. … But, is the extension of a well-recognized constitutional principle to a situation factually divergent from relevant precedent enough to qualify as “clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the

Landry v. Daley

280 F. Supp. 929 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 28, 1967

The rule established by the early cases dealing with the powers of a single judge when such injunctive relief was sought was that a single judge could not dismiss such an action on the merits. 5 This doctrine was qualified … Before a federal court will assume equitable jurisdiction, however, the groundwork for such relief must be established.

Kilborn v. Amiridis

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 2023

“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. … However, courts can evaluate qualified immunity arguments at the motion to dismiss stage “if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of a clearly established right having been violated.”

Churnovic v. Silver Cross Hospital and Medical Center

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 2021

Clearly Established Law The DCFS Defendants next argue that even if the investigation violated Plaintiffs’ rights, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that their right is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Andrews v. Burge

660 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 2009

A prosecutor should not be deprived of immunity because, in a case of murder, he decides to hear what the defendant has to say for himself. 9 *879 The state law rules governing prosecutorial immunity are, as everywhere or … The claims invoke many legal theories to establish Andrews’ right to a remedy. Some of them do not work. Count I alleges a violation of Brady v.

Scaife v. Favre

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields from liability governmental officials performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate a clearly established right that would be known by a reasonable person. … Nor is this the sort of thing that would qualify as so obvious that no legal precedent is needed to clearly establish the unlawfulness of the conduct.

Banks v. Sheahan

914 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 29, 1995

Defendants also raise the issue of qualified immunity. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the remaining claim.

Acosta v. Swank

312 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 1970

. § 1983 to secure alleged rights, privileges and immunities they claim are established by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Social Security Act and administrative regulations thereunder … Prior to November 1968, each of the plaintiffs had been found qualified for and entitled to receive monthly disbursals of public aid under the Illinois public aid law as administered by said Director of the Cook County Department

United States v. One 1985 Plymouth Colt Vista Vin JP3BG49D2FZ708241

644 F. Supp. 1546 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1986

Positions of the Parties According to the government, it has established probable cause for forfeiture 3 by establishing both Taylor’s involvement in *1548 drug trafficking and his lack of any source of money for the Plymouth … Taylor is clearly wrong in saying the government’s case is based entirely on the assertion he has no known source of money other than drug sales.

Schiessle v. Stephens

525 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1981

It will suffice if the challenged activity was clearly within the legislative intent. … The court went on to note, however, that an official’s ultra vires or bad faith actions may vitiate the immunity defense.

Bello v. Village of Skokie

151 F. Supp. 3d 849 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 31, 2015

Because immunity is an affirmative defense,"the burden is on *866 the defendants to establish that the TIA bars liability, and the Act is “strictly construed Against the public entities involved.” Van Meter v. … Third, they argue that the Tort Immunity Act immunizes the Village from liability undér IMLOAA.

Makowski v. United States

27 F. Supp. 3d 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 2014

Makowski argues that he has established a threat of imminent injury. … Makowski might be able to establish standing to seek an injunction against future immigration detainers or to require DHS to correct his records. See, e.g., Morales v. Chadbourne, C.A.

Glickman v. Maine-Niles Association of Special Recreation

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2020

That is, this Fourth Amendment claim still must be dismissed unless Plaintiff’s “constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … It was clearly established law, the Snell court reasoned, that the social workers could not rely on such information.