Case law

Lawline v. American Bar Ass'n

738 F. Supp. 288 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1990

Trustee also are immunized from antitrust liability, but for different reasons. The Justices and the ARDC are immune from antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine of Parker v. … State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977), we established that the State Supreme Court’s enforcement of disciplinary rules transgressed by members of its own bar was state action.

Mannie v. Doe

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability [under § 1983] so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … It goes without saying that, if the jury sees things from plaintiff’s point of view, then defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly established by the time of the incident that “officers cannot

Econ, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company

351 F. Supp. 1087 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 1972

Moreover, a state court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action to recover federal tax payments, because the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit only for tax l’efund actions brought in the federal … At any rate, the payments in question here were clearly collected by Illinois Bell and remitted to the United States in good faith as excise taxes.

Dae Roberson v. P.O. Kent Liebermann 225

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2019

Even if the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Roberson, qualified immunity protects them from civil liability so long as they did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right about which a … This would have been enough to cloak Defendants with qualified immunity. Id.

Appel v. LaSalle County State's Attorney Felony Enforcement Unit

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … be entitled to qualified immunity on any Section 1983 claims based on that misconduct, as Plaintiffs have not shown that it was clearly established that Defendants’ conduct was unauthorized.

Roldan v. Cicero

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 2021

of qualified immunity at the very first opportunity after [plaintiff] filed her amended complaint. … Qualified immunity is grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’ ” Hanson v.

Shakman v. Democratic Organization

920 F. Supp. 2d 881 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 29, 2013

would not have granted her immunity. … Gershon cannot establish a reasonable fear of incrimination in 2013 based on a grant of immunity in 2007 — and certainly not when we have no idea of the basis for a grant of immunity six years ago, or what connection (if

Dillard

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 19, 2026

They also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, id. II. … A plaintiff may do this only by plausibly alleging in his complaint a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id.

Walker v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 8, 2021

The court found, therefore, that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. Id. … Another court in this district recently disagreed with Haliw, stating that: The Haliw court held that what must be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity is the availability of a defense to

Miller v. Lake County Jail

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified immunity shields “government officials 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 … “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Gill-Richards v. Campanelli

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 2022

When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, courts ask whether “(1) [the officials] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … At the motion to dismiss stage, dismissal “is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’”

M.O. v. Hononegah Community High School District 207

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2019

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Price v. McCoy

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that qualified immunity protects them from liability. … Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Cherrone v. City of Morris

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly … Loomis, 938 F.3d 917, 919 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing various Supreme Court opinions in which lower courts were reversed for defining rights too broadly when holding that they were clearly established for purposes of qualified

Baker v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 2020

“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.” Lewis v. … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

United States v. Brown

349 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 1972

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) the Supreme Court granted certain materials, known roughly as the “work product” of the attorney, a qualified immunity from discovery in a judicial proceeding. … privilege established by Hickman.

Sneider v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

91 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1980

Those memos to file prepared by counsel and agents of counsel will only be protected if they fall within the work product immunity. The immunity is an outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hickman v. … The key to determining the applicability of the immunity is whether or not the papers aré prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Ghiles v. Municipal Electoral Board/Commissioners of Chicago Heights, IL.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 26, 2020

“When attempting to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that a particular right is ‘clearly established.’” Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2019). … Without addressing equal protection directly, the City Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims because this is “no clearly established constitutional right to

Banks v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 15, 2017

Qualified Immunity “‘Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate … Once a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right ‘was clearly established

Cusick v. Gualandri

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 22, 2021

Qualified Immunity – Donnelly and Englert “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Hanson v.