Case law

Jones v. Britt Airways, Inc.

622 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1985

Whether the qualified privilege is established is an issue of fact. Welch v. Chicago Tribune Co., 34 Ill.App.3d 1046, 1051 , 340 N.E.2d 539 (1st Dist.1975). … Even if Britt can establish her entitlement to a qualified privilege, the privilege may be overcome by a showing of actual malice on the part of the defendant. Colson v.

Jewish War Veterans of US v. American Nazi Party

260 F. Supp. 452 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1966

The complaint in this cause (together with the so-called “Emergency Complaint” clearly sets forth a conspiracy between defendants for the purpose of depriving plaintiffs in this cause and others, — people of the Jewish faith … — of equal privileges and immunities which have been granted to them under the Constitution and the statutes of this country.

Young v. County of Cook

598 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2009

Qualified immunity The Sheriff Defendants filed a second summary judgment motion contending they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "[I]t is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims." Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 , 732 (7th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted).

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Conlisk

374 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 28, 1973

And, even if they do qualify for participation, they would only be allowed to solicit on one day per year. … Here, the tag-day ordinance not only requires registration, but then limits solicitation to one day per year, even after a religious group has established its bona fides.

Nanda v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

219 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 2001

Frapwell, 160 F.3d 389, 395 (7th Cir.1998)) (“The Eleventh Amendment is no bar to Velasquez’s claim of national-origin discrimination [against Indiana University], a claim founded on a statute (Title VII) that is clearly … For the same reasons that the Courts of Appeals must follow controlling decisions from the Supreme Court, this court is bound to adhere to the precedents established by the Seventh Circuit. See Pickett v.

Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago

561 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 18, 1983

These letters express the view that “advocacy of illegal conduct, however general or unspecific in nature, is not immune from investigation.” … Plaintiffs fear that the FBI might maintain a dossier on controversial groups that do not qualify for a full (or even preliminary, see below) investigation.

Torres v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2021

Defendant Officers Keating and Horton Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The right to be free of the warrantless search of a home when an occupant expressly refuses consent is clearly established. See Georgia v.

Villa v. Franzen

511 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1981

Franzen and Reed are entitled to a qualified immunity shielding them from damage liability under Section 1983, because Villa has failed to demonstrate that their allegedly injurious actions were “intentional.” … And such proof would satisfy Monell . 8 Finally, this Court does not accept Commission’s contention that a “passive” custom 9 — mere acquiescence in illegal actions on the part of its employees — cannot serve to establish

Pena v. Chicago Police Department

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2023

But the same factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It has long been clearly established that the use of “significant force is unreasonable” if it is unprovoked or provoked only by passive resistance.

Soto v. Salgado

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2023

But the same factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It has long been clearly established that the use of “significant force is unreasonable” if it is unprovoked or provoked only by passive resistance.

Cunningham v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … was not clearly established.

Coleman v. Village Of Riverdale

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 18, 2024

Officer Mooney The defendants argue that Officer Mooney’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and, even if they did, he is protected by qualified immunity. … Because there was no constitutional violation, Officer Mooney is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc.

765 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 1991

As a result, United established a new type of training program for the 570. … The new seniority provision would clearly impose irreparable injury on plaintiffs.

Frakes v. Northeast Illinois Railroad Corp.

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

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit when the official is performing a discretionary function and his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity gives state officers the benefit of the doubt when they make decisions without crossing well-established boundaries.

Granzow v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc.

27 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 11, 1998

Clearly Granzow has demonstrated that they would be. … From the required look at the evidence in the light most favorable to Granzow, a genuine issue of material fact clearly exists as to whether Granzow was qualified.

Wilson v. Illinois Central Railroad

147 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 1957

The defendant relies upon authorities holding that the Act does not confer upon the returning veteran immunity from layoffs or a reduction in force based upon seniority. Fishgold v. … Where the bar of the passage of time clearly appears upon the face of the complaint, the defense has been considered upon a motion to dismiss. See Berry v. Chrysler Corp., 6 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 1002 .

United States v. Interlake Steel Corporation

297 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 1969

Although the Coast Guard is not .among those agencies fixed with the responsibility of enforcing the Rivers and Harbors Act by Section 17, enforceability of the Act clearly should not rest upon the fortuity of which particular … In reaching this conclusion, the court observed that “[a]ny doubts are resolved by a consistent administrative construction which refused to give immunity to industrial .wastes resulting in the deposit of solids in the very

Rodney Harris v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 2018

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless there is: (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ alleged misconduct. Pearson v. … Because Sexton was acting as a prosecutor, and Harris has not shown that a prosecutor’s duty to intervene was clearly established at the relevant time, Sexton also has qualified immunity for Harris’s failure to intervene

Max M. v. Thompson

585 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 23, 1984

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), in finding an eleventh amendment immunity for the State Defendants. … It concluded that the compensatory education order, unlike *324 damages, was prospective and therefore not barred by the state’s immunity. Timms, 722 F.2d at 1315 .

Waterworth v. City of Joliet

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2021

In the alternative, Defendants also assert a defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful stop and detention claim.