Case law

Williams v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2020

This fact issue precludes the Court from entering summary judgment, unless Defendants can establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Belcher v. … Hill and Garcia are entitled to qualified immunity if they can demonstrate that “a reasonable officer could have believed [Plaintiff’s] arrest to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

Nuclear Data, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission

344 F. Supp. 719 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 16, 1972

Defendants contend that unless the Plaintiff can point to a specific statute waiving sovereign immunity by the United States, Anderson, as Assistant General Counsel for Patents of the AEC, and the AEC are immune from suit … Defendants contend that where Congress intended a hearing to be held, it could state so quite clearly. Por example, see section 153 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2183 . 4 .

Horsell Graphic Industries, Ltd. v. Valuation Counselors, Inc.

639 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 15, 1986

uphold immunity for arbitrators. … Therefore, the court cannot give defendants arbitral immunity. II.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hartford Insurance

692 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

It is well-established that the United States is immune from money damages suits except where it has statutorily consented to be sued. United States v. … FDIC, 506 F.2d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir.1974) (“[t]he FDIC is clearly a federal agency and within the coverage of the FTCA”); FDIC v.

United States v. Carrozzo

37 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 1941

It must clearly appear from the indictment that the activities with which defendants are charged are such as unreasonably restrain interstate commerce and prejudice the public interests, and are not activities which come … Union here was immune from prosecution in a civil suit, because of the provisions of the NorrisLaGuardia Act, surely it would likewise be immune from prosecution in a criminal suit.

Glickman v. Village of Morton Grove

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2019

right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Gonzalez, 578 F.3d at 540. … Nor was it clearly established that a retaliatory Terry stop supported by reasonable suspicion violated the First Amendment.

Johnson v. Perez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time of the … But regardless of whether Manuel or Thompson clearly established the right, the result in this case is the same—qualified immunity forecloses Johnson’s malicious prosecution claim.

Boyce v. Fairman

24 F. Supp. 2d 880 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 1998

They argue that as public employees, they were covered by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Chapter 745 ILCS 10/1-101 et. seq., and thus were able to avail themselves of the immunities and defenses therein. … Also, Defendants' qualified immunity argument cannot be entertained herein, as it was first, inappropriately, raised in Defendants’ Reply brief. 7 .

Alcorn v. City Of Chicago

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

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish a violation of a constitutional right, and the court must determine if the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … It is unreasonable to find that following the BOP Order violated a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, this Court finds qualified immunity attaches and protects Sgt.

Dante Smith v. The City of Chicago, et al.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 15, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that, even if such facts give rise to an excessive force claim, Officer Napoli remains protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity … When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity, “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Clash v.

Foggey v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 5, 2018

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To decide whether the defense of qualified immunity applies, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established

Davis v. Johnson

138 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1955

It has been established that, where a cause of action is given by a federal statute and no specific provision is made by an act of Congress for its survival, it survives or not according to the principles of the common law … Counsel have cited no Federal statute decisive of the question, and the court finds none clearly so decisive. * It is provided by Section 1983 that the action may be brought by the “party injured”.

Fernandez v. Wolff

919 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 1996

Mem. at 4, the law is clearly to the contrary. Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. … In this case, Fernandez claims that pursuant to the criteria established by the Faculty Agreement and Statement, he had a legitimate expectation of retention.

Johnson v. Rauland-Borg Corp.

961 F. Supp. 208 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 1997

The Court will presume that Rauland-Borg satisfied its burden of establishing that the legal advice qualifies for protection under the attorney-client privilege, assuming the privilege has not been waived. … Jan. 26, 1995) (“[T]he advice that counsel gave during the course of the investigation relating to the investigation is clearly relevant and cannot be considered privileged.

Smith v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.

859 F. Supp. 1138 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 1994

Summary judgment must be granted “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the *1141 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof … The content of the opinion clearly pertains to the issue of judicial estoppel and to hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance. 5 .

Clay v. Williams

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 31, 2020

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and once raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating it by showing: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … Here, Clay failed to meet his burden to defeat a qualified immunity defense.

Family Life Church v. City of Elgin

561 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 18, 2008

Summary Judgment Standard Every Rule 56 movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp. v. … under the Tort Immunity Act as well. 23 There is, however, a question whether the Tort Immunity Act should bar a claim against a municipal corporation brought under the later-enacted Illinois Act, in light of this provision

Wright v. Burnett

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 4, 2018

As a final matter, the Court notes that the defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Wright’s malicious prosecution claim.2 This Court has already determined that the defendants are entitled to … summary judgment on that claim, and accordingly need not address their additional arguments concerning qualified immunity.

Ybarra v. City of Chicago

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

immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established rule at the time of the shooting. … “A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Harco Holdings, Inc. v. United States

754 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 1990

(“Association Life”) qualified as a life insurance company for federal tax purposes for the 1978 taxable year. … CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Harco has not established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Harco’s motion for summary judgment is denied.