Case law

Crosetto v. Heffernan

810 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 1992

“[A] court considering a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity has before it a pure question of law: whether, based on all the undisputed facts, the defendant’s conduct violated any clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, where the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Wilson v. Schomig

863 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their official actions unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable person would have known. Anderson v.

Bonds v. Fizer

713 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2010

If an officer can establish “arguable probable cause” to arrest the plaintiff, then he is entitled to qualified immunity. Williams, 269 F.3d at 781 . … “A plaintiff seeking to defeat the assertion of qualified immunity must establish that the law concerning the plaintiffs asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” Kog er v.

Boothe v. Wheeling Police Officer Sherman

190 F. Supp. 3d 788 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … violated clearly established law.

Petit v. City of Chicago

766 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 16, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Spiegel v. City of Chicago

920 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 1996

Qualified immunity protects 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.” … The test of qualified immunity for police officers is whether a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Watts v. Ramos

948 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1996

Qualified immunity will shield a defendant’s actions unless the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a sufficiently particularized sense at the time of the actions at issue.” … be clearly established.

Anton v. Sheriff of DuPage County, Ill.

47 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 1999

Qualified Immunity Kretovic and Zamora argue that even if Anton’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Chan v. City of Chicago

916 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability if their conduct did not violate “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … It is the plaintiffs burden to demonstrate the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Id.

Gannon v. Daley

561 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.... … Harlow seems to hold that the question of qualified immunity will always be a question of law: the judge will determine whether defendants violated clearly established rights.

Knox v. McGinnis

783 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. … restraints (such a prayer for relief states an official-capacity rather than an individual-capacity claim, so that qualified immunity does not apply).

Trout v. Frega

926 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the right allegedly violated was clearly established for purposes of denying an officer qualified immunity from a claim under § 1983. Sledd, 864 F.Supp. at 827 .

McCall-Bey v. Franzen

585 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 1984

If the law was clearly established; the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Thus it appears that the law was clearly established on the date of the Committee’s and Lane’s actions.

Perry v. Elrod

436 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1977

good faith immunity. … with disregarding the plaintiff’s established rights.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

652 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1986

That alone confers the Harlow -dictated qualified immunity on Mathis. … Rather the question is whether it was clearly established when Mathis acted that they were not “confidential” employees. It was not so established then, and that independently shields Mathis with qualified immunity.

Smallwood v. Renfro

708 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1989

Coupland too is entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … In any case, it will be recalled the test here is one of a “clearly established" right.

Mohil v. Glick

842 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2012

Immunity But Mohils have cleared that state actor hurdle only to fall at the next: the need to avoid foundering on the shoals of immunity — not just qualified immunity, but absolute immunity. 8 This opinion turns then to … Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or *1078 shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right” and also “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Segreti v. Gillen

259 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2003

The constitutional right to free speech was clearly established at the time of this incident. … Therefore, because plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, and that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation, defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I based on qualified immunity is

Alfredia Edwards as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Nathaniel Edwards v. Officer John Doe

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity Analysis Cater raises an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Dkt. 139, at 8. … Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, 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

Hobbs v. Cappelluti

899 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2012

Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 690-91 (7th Cir.2008) (a clearly established right is one where “there is a clearly analogous case establishing a right to be free from the specific conduct at issue or that the conduct is so egregious … was not a clearly established constitutional violation.