Case law

Levin v. Madigan

697 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2010

Once a qualified immunity defense is asserted, the plaintiff faces the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” … Because the availability of Plaintiffs equal protection claim for age discrimination is not clearly established, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count IV.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

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

“The qualified immunity defense is designed to protect government agents ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”).

Hughes v. Jones

40 F. Supp. 3d 969 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 17, 2014

immunity because the alleged constitutional violation will rarely—if ever—be clearly established.”)). … But the clearly established inquiry is not so nebulous, as Brokaw itself made clear in rejecting the defendants qualified immunity defense in that case.

Booker v. Ward

905 F. Supp. 483 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 1995

Qualified immunity analysis is a two step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Biddle v. Martin, 992 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1993). … If probable cause did not exist, the officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if their mistake as to the existence of probable cause for an arrest was reasonable despite the pertinent law that was clearly

Malec v. Sanford

191 F.R.D. 581 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 2000

The Board-defendants now renew their request for legislative and qualified immunity. … In fact, the defendants wrongly place the burden on Malee to establish that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Board of Education of Consolidated School District 230

18 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1998

The individual defendants also argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Because that would violate clearly established law, defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. See Stoneking, 882 F.2d at 720 .

Broadnax v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc.

180 F.R.D. 343 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 31, 1998

ANALYSIS The burden here is on the defendant to establish that the work product doctrine immunizes the documents at issue from discovery. U.S. v. … These are clearly course-of-business, in-house considerations that would be made in the wake of any trucking company accident.

Vance v. Rumsfeld

694 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity Rumsfeld argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on all claims, including Count I. … The court determined that Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any clearly established right. Id. at 108-109 .

Kennedy v. Hardiman

684 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1988

suspicion” standard was not “clearly established” for searches of correctional officers at correctional institutions. … may be en *545 titled to judgment on his qualified immunity defense after trial.

Steigmann v. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOIS

406 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In addition, Sheedy would be entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff did not establish that the alleged constitutional violation here was clearly established when Sheedy effected the non-renewal of Plaintiffs contract

Money Market Pawn, Inc. v. Boone County Sheriff Duane Wirth

32 F. Supp. 3d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Livingston Cnty., Ill., 674 F.3d 874, 881 (7th Cir.2012) (“[Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity-”).

Flood v. Lane

638 F. Supp. 677 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 1986

All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 3. Klincar is absolutely immune from suit. 4. … Immunity from Damages All defendants next seek insulation from damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.

Hermes v. Hein

479 F. Supp. 820 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1979

Qualified Immunity of the Individual Defendants. The court must also deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint against the individual defendants. … Defendants contend that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Under the qualified immunity doctrine, Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) and Wood v.

Pyka v. Village of Orland Park

906 F. Supp. 1196 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 8, 1995

Count I: Excessive Force.1215 (a) Qualified Immunity.1215 (i) Scope of Discretionary Authority.1216 (ii) Constitutional Violation.1217 (iii) Clearly Established Law....1219 (b) A Split of Authority.1219 (i) The Circuit Court … Thus, immunity may be conferred on a defendant only if the undisputed facts establish that the defendant’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. Id.

Viero v. Bufano

925 F. Supp. 1374 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 1996

This argument is futile, however, because once defendants concede that the law is “clearly established” and that the plaintiff must prove deliberate indifference, the issue becomes fact-intensive and any concept of qualified … Because of the lack of factual development at the motion to dismiss stage, it is sometimes difficult to establish at that point that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Taahira W. Ex Rel. McCord-Salley v. Travis

908 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 20, 1995

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Also, as noted above, the facts alleged set out a violation of that clearly established constitutional right. On the issue of qualified immunity, the Camp case is distinguishable.

Atkins v. City of Chicago

632 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton], supra, [ 483 U.S. 635 ] at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) ]. … from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Sanders v. Marovich

102 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2000

and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time? Forman v.. Richmond Police Dep’t., 104 F.3d 950 , 957 (7th Cir.1997). The alleged conduct would constitute a violation. Mr. … However, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Boyd v. Angarone

729 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 1990

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from liabil *1198 ity for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … For a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining qualified immunity, the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

King v. Avila

760 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1989

Such an allegation involves the issue of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity exists because public officers require some form of immunity from suits for damages. Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d 441 (7th Cir.1989). … ; and 2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question? Id. at 554 .