Case law

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

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.

Brzowski v. Sigler

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2020

"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 … Thus, the availability of the qualified immunity defense turns on whether the relevant constitutional standard was "clearly established at the time of the alleged violation," from November 2015 through February 2017.

Low v. Richardson

360 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 23, 1973

In order to qualify as a “provider” of hospital services reimbursable by Medicare, a hospital must establish a Utilization Review Committee, composed of two or more physicians, which periodically certifies the medical need … Clearly, none of this was done until four months after her discharge and then by only one physician as opposed to the required two. Mrs.

Brodsky

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2026

According to Brodsky, this language “clearly modified and limited the scope of the May 19, 2022 gag order,” freeing him to speak publicly about “any aspect of his representation of Peterson” not protected by the attorney-client … Brodsky argues that this action was “clearly outside of [Elward’s] role as a prosecutor, and therefore neither absolute nor qualified immunity apply.” Id. ¶ 6.

Taylor v. Rodriguez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person … “A plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish ‘that the law concerning the plaintiff’s asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.’”

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 .

Adamidis v. Cook County

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

of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … right, and (2) that the unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

Mong v. McKenzie

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2024

Finally, the second amended complaint also fails because the defendant officers have qualified immunity. … the federal right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Fonza v. Chicago Public Schools District 299

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2018

Defendants have not adequately developed their qualified immunity arguments. … Defendants may move for dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

Meisser v. Hove

872 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 1994

Plaintiff was found qualified and posted for the position. He was not selected. … Plaintiff may establish a prima facie case based on failure to accommodate a handicap by showing: (1) that he is handicapped and the employer was aware of the handicap, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the position,

Somerville

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2026

Because the approach established by Monell is the only means for establishing municipal liability under Section 1983, see, e.g., Chortek v. … The Court also rejects the Defendant Officers’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity at this early stage of litigation. See Reed v.

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”.

Palucki v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

687 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 1, 1988

A prima facie showing under the McDonnell Douglas standard requires plaintiff to establish that (1) he belongs to the age protected class, (2) he was qualified for his position, (3) he was terminated, and (4) he was replaced … Even in this testing by McDonnell Douglas, plaintiff failed to meet the demands of the prima facie case. *391 Plaintiff, of course, urges that he was clearly “qualified” for the position and performed it at a level that should

Doe v. Miller

573 F. Supp. 461 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 1983

Clearly, the parents in this case should not be forced either to withdraw their children’s applications for food stamps or risk being reported to INS as “illegal aliens,” contrary to standards established by federal law. … Finally, the issuance of the injunction clearly will not disserve the public interest since it enforces clearly mandated federal policy with regard to the administration of the food stamp program.

Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.

432 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 22, 2006

This is clearly not the case here, as the interest rate may never factor into the transaction at all. Thus, this Court finds that Cingu-lar has extended a firm offer of credit. B. … Although Murray has established that Cingular violated the FCRA’s provisions that disclosures be clear and conspicuous, he has not established that he is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to section 1681n.

Joyner v. Balas

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 16, 2023

“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 person … Courts assess claims of qualified immunity under a two-part test. Kemp, 877 F.3d at 350.

Cooper v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2018

Qualified immunity protects police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … As such, this Court should grant them qualified immunity on Count I. B.

Dumas v. Chicago Housing Authority

930 F. Supp. 1238 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 11, 1996

Accordingly the Court held that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Id. Similarly, this court in Hammond v. … The CHA argues that Dumas has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a due process violation.

MSA Realty Corp. v. State of Ill.

794 F. Supp. 267 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 7, 1992

It sought to accomplish this goal through enabling Illinois municipalities to create tax increment financing districts (“TIF districts”) in statutorily qualified areas within their boundaries. … By contrast, a plaintiff may bring an injunctive or declaratory action grounded on federal law against state officials as defendants and overcome the immunity of the Eleventh Amendment.