Case law

Goka v. Bobbitt

625 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 1985

But Goka might have a harder time establishing what he calls a “reckless failure to learn” about the lack of enforcement. … As in the Eleventh Amendment context, the state cannot extend the mantle of sovereign immunity over an individual’s conduct by voluntarily indemnifying them.

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.

Hayes v. Narang

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 18, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “plaintiffs must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the official's

Dorsey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 2026

officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … Defendants’ opening brief did not raise the issue, but Dorsey himself did in his opposition brief, citing cases that he believes establish that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

C.B. v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, District 299

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 2022

entitled to qualified immunity. … Id. at 12 n.7 (collecting cases). 7Defendants do not argue that the law is not “clearly established” for first amendment retaliation claims like Plaintiffs’, so the Court does not address qualified immunity

Jones v. City of Chicago

639 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 24, 1986

. (¶ 30) During pre-trial conferences, defendant officers allegedly maliciously suppressed from the plaintiff and his attorneys several police reports and memos containing exculpatory evidence clearly exonerating George Jones … Plaintiff correctly states that the racial animus of any one of the key conspirators is sufficient to establish the denial of equal protection of the law under § 1985, Bell v.

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

Leclaire Courts Resident Management Corp. v. Chicago Housing Authority

945 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 28, 1996

. § 1437r provides that a “resident management corporation. that qualifies under this section ... shall enter into a contract with the public housing agency establishing the respective rights and responsibilities of the corporation … Congress’ scheme' to promote resident management of public housing projects clearly relies on state law as a foundation.

Mermigas v. The Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2025

MOHELA argues that it does not qualify as a “person” under the ICFA and therefore is not subject to suit. Mermigas disagrees. … MOHELA was established pursuant to the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority Act, Mo. Ann. Stat. §173.360, as a “body politic.”

Schor v. Abbott Laboratories

378 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 12, 2005

plaintiffs in Doe and Service Employees had standing as indirect consumers of Norvir to pursue their Sherman Act claims, the Seventh Circuit has held that the “denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing does not qualify … It is well established that not all conduct that hurts competitors is anticompetitive or a violation of the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Spectrum Sports, Inc. v.

Scott v. City of Hammond, Ind.

519 F. Supp. 292 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 24, 1981

The state court refused to recognize the immunity Nevada would have in its own courts, reasoning that California law did not provide the same immunity. … XI, § 2 (1970) clearly establishes his right to enforce environmental rights.

Kykta v. Ciaccio

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 2019

Defendants filed an affirmative defense, asserting that they are entitled to Qualified Immunity for the actions that they took in good faith, and were reasonable under the circumstances, and did not violate any clearly … “A plaintiff seeking to defeat a defense of qualified immunity must establish two things: first, that she has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right; and second, that the right in question was ‘clearly established

United States v. Circuit Court of Cook County

967 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 1997

Under the new version of section 2254, Aleman must show either that: (1) the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme … immunity.

Williams v. Hart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2022

The federal due-process rights in this context are not clearly established. The IDOC defendants thus have qualified immunity from such claims. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability when their actions do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights that they reasonably should have known. Harlow v.

Holmes v. Silver Cross Hospital of Joliet, Illinois

340 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 1972

We believe, however, that even if he was erroneous in his judgment as to the full scope of his jurisdiction and even if he was acting maliciously, the judge who appointed Baron is immune .from suit under the established doctrine … of judicial immunity.

Rateree v. Rockett

670 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 1987

As to Count II the Opinion denied defendants’ motion, except that City Clerk Walter Johnson was dismissed on good faith immunity grounds. … Here defendants have clearly done more than assert Brown’s lack of evidence and have satisfied Justice White's suggested higher burden. 10 .

Spraggins v. Brown

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2019

Defendant Brown's Qualified Immunity Defense Defendant Brown argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … Accordingly, Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity. 5.

In Re Comdisco Securities Litigation

141 F. Supp. 2d 951 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 2001

further that another highly reputable law firm that has appeared of record for another putative plaintiff or plaintiffs, having demonstrated excellent credentials in earlier securities class action litigation and being clearly … original choice of counsel or working together with that original counsel (but with the total lawyers' fees to be circumscribed by the low bidder's proposal), the presumption would clearly remain unrebutted and the presumptive

McKinley v. Gomez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 2024

Rogers, 944 F.3d 966, 968 (7th Cir. 2019) (claims barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity must be dismissed with prejudice). … McKinley’s complaint fails to allege a violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time. See Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 697 (7th Cir. 2028).

Mack v. Chandler

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 7, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil “liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law…If officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the issue [of whether or not an action was constitutional], immunity