Case law

Tang v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2021

Defendants also have not established that qualified immunity precludes Tang’s procedural due process claim. … Instead, they fault Tang for not specifically pleading that the rights he asserts were clearly established.

O'NEAL v. City of Chicago

317 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 2004

(Defendants also argue that O’Neal cannot sustain her Section 1981 and Section 1988 claims and that Defendant Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity.) LEGAL STANDARDS A. … Accordingly, the transfer cannot qualify as an adverse employment action on this basis. See id.; Williams v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 85 F.3d 270, 273-74 (7th Cir.1996).

Whitney v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA)

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” County of Escondido v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, the court must assess “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

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.

O'Brien v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2023

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff’s federal claims also fail on qualified-immunity grounds. … Plaintiff hasn’t shown that defendants violated his clearly established rights by using excessive force. 6 O’Brien also argues that the issue of qualified immunity cannot be decided

Polland v. Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2025

Officers are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed at the time.” Phillips v. Cmty.

Perez v. McCray

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2025

She also argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the qualified immunity argument is denied as moot and Defendant Shebel’s motion (Dkt. 25) is denied.

Youakim v. Miller

374 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 1974

Section 5 of the Department of Children and Family Services Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1971, Ch. 23, § 5005, empowers the Department (“CFS”) and its Director to (a) establish rules and regulations concerning foster care; (b) accept … Defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the action is in effect against the State of Illinois and therefore is barred by the sovereign immunity provision of the Eleventh Amendment.

Woodard v. Eubanks

94 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 8, 2000

state law malicious prosecution claim against the City of Chicago and the police officers had to be filed within a year after the claim arose, pursuant to the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity … And, we think, Illinois law clearly establishes that disposition by SOL will not support a malicious prosecution claim. See Adenekan v. Chicago Police Officers, 1996 WL 734705 (N.D.Ill); Ingram v.

Pursley v. City of Rockford

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2024

They argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there was no underlying constitutional violation, but they do not address whether there was a clearly established constitutional right. … The invocation of qualified immunity shifts the burden to Pursley to show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 638-39 (7th Cir. 2021).

Pogodzinski v. Village of Skokie IL

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

Twanski further intimates that the claims against him should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Abney v. Monahan

458 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2006

To state a claim under § 1983, Abney must show that he was deprived of a federal right, privilege or immunity by a person acting under color of state law. Id. … immunity or improper service to Watkins. 10 I therefore grant *622 defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismiss Abney’s claim. 1 .

Hicks v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 2020

immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Lastly, Mears and Murphy are not entitled to qualified immunity on Hicks’ unlawful-seizure claim because they violated clearly established law (if the jury believes the Plaintiffs’ version of the facts).

Lumpkin v. Brown

898 F. Supp. 1263 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 1995

Within that framework plaintiffs have the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination. … Lehman, 453 U.S. at 168-69 , 101 S.Ct. at 2705 -2706 has confirmed that "Congress did not depart from its normal practice of not providing a right to trial by jury when it waived the sover *1272 eign immunity of the United

Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park

748 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2010

“Deciding a claim of qualified immunity generally involves two inquiries: (1) has the plaintiff alleged facts that, if proved, would establish a constitutional violation; and (2) would a reasonable officer have known his … actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law?”

Maysonet, Jr. v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 11, 2020

because the constitutional violations alleged by Maysonet are clearly established. … Indeed, the assertion of qualified immunity, unless brought in bad faith, reflects an expectation that the evidence may reveal ambiguities such that the court or a jury could find that the officers did not violate clearly

Muni v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

891 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1995

Under the INS’ view, membership on a major league team does not by itself qualify an athlete as one having extraordinary ability, though it may help to establish that the athlete meets several of the criteria listed. … Yet the INS did not explain why the articles did not qualify as proof of Muni’s ability.

Tatham-Laird & Kudner, Inc. v. Johnny's American Inn, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 1974

The facts clearly do not support such myopic and self-serving bootstrapping. … The defendant’s statement of the applicable law is thus clearly in error.

Baltz v. Shelley

661 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 1987

The defendants have not raised the possibility that they are immune from such a claim; consequently, the court holds that they have waived any immunity defenses to the false-imprisonment claim. … Qualified Immunity As government officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants correctly state that they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established

Rosas v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2023

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … established law such that she is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983