Case law

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

Lowrie v. Goldenhersh

521 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 2, 1981

Plaintiff points out that had he worked for the Justice Department in Detroit for the past five years, he would clearly satisfy the requirement of the Illinois rule. … Such a rule presents a prima facie violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, § 2, (see Toomer v.

Crews v. Martinez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2022

; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … it goes far to establish qualified immunity

SKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Dart

650 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 8, 2009

As to Judge Wright, it has long been established that the common law of judicial immunity from damages carries over to Section 1983 (see, e.g., Pierson v. … Here SKS’ prayer seeking such relief is clearly an attempted end run around the statutory prohibition against injunctive relief. This Court will not aid it to obtain indirectly what it cannot obtain directly.

United States v. Swift & Co.

24 F.R.D. 280 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 14, 1959

Speaking of such cases, Professor Moore observes: “The Supreme Court decision clearly authorizes, if it does not require, these holdings. … Here the fact of commission of an offense was established by consent a number of years ago.

Curtis v. Wilks

704 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2010

Plaintiffs have simply failed to connect the dots, i.e., establish that Rotolo’s private sector experience qualifies him as an expert on suburban, and in particular the Village of Mount Prospect’s, downtown redevelopment … However, a plaintiff must establish that there was a scheme to defraud, which requires a plaintiff to “establish[] that the defendants had the intent to implement such a scheme.” Id.

Chicago Joint Bd., Amal. Cloth. Wkrs. v. Chicago Tribune Co.

307 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 1969

Supp. 864, 869 (N.D.Ill.1967), “(i)t is elementary that in order to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, there must be ‘state action’ which results in deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity protected … It found, as we could find in the instant case, that “as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major issues of our time, (the advertisement) would seem- clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection.

Tenorio v. Village of Robbins

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

qualified immunity. … Police 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 time.”

United States v. Illinois

148 F.R.D. 587 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 9, 1993

The party asserting the protection of a privilege has the burden of establishing both the existence and applicability of the privilege. Brock v. Gerace, 110 F.R.D. 58 (D.N.J.1986). … Clearly, however, the goal of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act is compelling.

Torry v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2018

Again, once Defendants invoked qualified immunity, it became Plaintiffs’ burden to show that Defendants violated a clearly established right. See al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735. … In any event, because Defendant Officers invoke qualified immunity, the burden again shifts to Plaintiffs to identify clearly established law violated by Defendants’ conduct.

Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network

76 F. Supp. 3d 796 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 31, 2014

If the statute stopped there, then Advocate would clearly lose: Advocate established its plan, and therefore its plan was not established by a church. … Advocate would have this amendment signify that Congress also now intended for a plan simply maintained by any self-affiliated organization to qualify (without the *805 need for church establishment), Defs.’

Gunn v. Village of Bolingbrook

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2022

“Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In order to counter the qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff “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

Godinez v. City Of Chicago

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

“Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … …To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Dobbey v. Baldwin

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 8, 2019

the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … They have waived their qualified immunity defense and, in any event, are not entitled to qualified immunity.