Case law

Catlett v. Peters

32 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 1998

He alleges that he was not permitted to confront and cross-examine the IDHS patients, nor was he given access to other IDHS patients who could establish that he did not commit the offenses alleged. … Defendants also argue that they are immune from suit under the common law doctrine of “public official immunity.”

Yost v. Chicago Park District

17 F. Supp. 3d 803 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 19, 2014

Second, Human Resources arranges interviews with all qualifying candidates. (Id.) … those differ- *813 enees are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue.”

First Defense Legal Aid v. City of Chicago

209 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 18, 2002

But it must be remembered that this is not an action for damages that might trigger considerations of qualified immunity, but is rather one seeking injunctive relief to which such immunity does not extend (see, e.g., Pulliam … Allen, 466 U.S. 522 , 104 S.Ct. 1970 , 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984), rejecting even the applicability of absolute judicial immunity where only injunctive relief is at issue).

Medina v. Izquierdo

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government actors from liability for damages under § 1983 to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As discussed above, qualified immunity protects government actors from liability if the conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Peoples v. Oswego Community School District

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 2020

“A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Safford, 557 U.S. at 377 (cleaned up). … But the court proceeded to hold that qualified immunity applied because “the reasonableness of such a search at public school is not clearly established under Seventh Circuit law.” Id.

McGee v. Gomez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2025

In applying qualified immunity to the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause re- quirement, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if arguable probable cause ex- isted to detain the plaintiff. Huff v. … Again, Gomez and Altmayer are shielded from liability on the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims due to qualified immunity.

McGuire v. Chicago Transit Authority

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 15, 2018

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a presumption of qualified immunity, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish two things: (1) that the facts alleged describe a violation of a protected right; and (2) that this right was clearly established at

Gaspar v. Murphy

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 2018

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.’” … When assessing the clearly established prong of qualified immunity “the inquiry is aimed at determining whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position would have understood his actions to be against the law at

Valentine v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

544 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 13, 1982

Those who clearly stand out above the rest of the `highly qualified' are the `best qualified.' DEA Manual at ¶ 0633.42(D)(6)(d) (Mar. 13, 1980) (emphasis supplied). … Defendants' argument with respect to Valentine's asserted failure to establish a prima facie case is that he has not shown that he was among the best qualified candidates for the positions he sought.

Nowak v. International Truck and Engine Corp.

406 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 2005

In light of the fact that Davis had already served as a Business Team Unit Leader in Intentional’s Huntsville, Alabama facility, there is no basis for the jury to conclude that Nowak was clearly more qualified than Davis. … Kos’s allegation is clearly probative of discrimination.

Brown v. Chicago Police Department

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Johnson v. Jack B. Kelley, Inc.

669 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 1987

The court stated that “[t]he intent of the Contribution statute was to reach anyone who was culpable, regardless of whether they have been immunized from a direct tort action by some special defense or privilege.” … between a plaintiff and an employer, its conclusion that an employer may *194 be “subject to liability in tort” within the meaning of the Contribution Act, despite the potential defense of the Worker’s Compensation statute, clearly

Black v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board

750 F. Supp. 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 1990

voters, including 200 qualified voters from each of at least 50 counties. … It would delay these proceedings unnecessarily to do so, when plaintiffs could clearly furnish an appropriate individual plaintiff.

Adamidis v. Cook County

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 27, 2020

constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … The complaint fails the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Mathias v. Addison Fire Protection District No. 1

43 F. Supp. 2d 916 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 1999

Thus, an employer must satisfy following requirements to qualify for Section 7(g)(2)’s exemption: (1) the employee must perform two or more kinds of work; (2) the employer must establish a bona fide hourly rate for those … To qualify under Section 7(g)(2), the following two additional requirements must be met: 1) the overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e)(5), (6), or (7) and 2) the number

Woodruff v. Humana Pharmacy Inc.

65 F. Supp. 3d 588 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 29, 2014

supervision, and control of the Secretary, through CMS, to administer Medicare Advantage Part D benefits to members, including Barbara Woodruff, subject to the strict rules and guidelines of the Medicare Act,” and therefore qualifies … And indeed, the Supreme Court has cautioned that federal-officer immunity is not meant to apply whenever a state-court action is filed against a private firm in a highly regulated industry. See id.

Chachere v. Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2018

Defendants argue in the alternative that even if they violated the Fourth Amendment, they are entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time the search occurred, it was not “clearly established” that the search was … The officers’ invocation of qualified immunity fails. Pre-October 2014 precedent clearly established that the permissible reach of a warrantless search is bounded by the scope of the consent given and received.

Rogers v. Provident Hospital

241 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 13, 1965

Air Terminal Services, Inc., 85 F.Supp. 545 (E.D.Va.1949); clearly no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is presented here. … It is elementary that in order to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, there must be "state action" which results in a deprivation of a right, *637 privilege or immunity protected by that Amendment.

Kay v. First Continental Trading, Inc.

966 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 1997

Ricci focused only on a right of qualified immunity against any potential claim of that nature — but because the parties there did not address the viability or nonviability of any such claim, the Court of Appeals had no occasion … And Van Ella has not referred (let alone discussed) the later decision in Musick, Peeler & Garrett, whose analysis so clearly calls for the rejection of any such implied claim here. 5 .

Barr Ex Rel. Barr v. United States

628 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 17, 2009

Negligent oversight of the wall’s installation is clearly within this realm. … United States, 751 F.2d 303 *809 (8th Cir.1985) (which plaintiffs call the “most analogous” case to theirs), is that the United States failed 1) to solicit competitive bids for the concrete project, and 2) to “qualify” both