Case law

American Deposit Corp. v. Schacht

887 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Clearly, the regulation of the insurance industry is an important state interest. See supra at 1069. … Clearly, there is a traditional, insurance-product mortality risk to both the customer and Blackfeet.

Tucker v. Lally

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 6, 2020

Qualified immunity Defendants’ second argument, that Judgment as a Matter of Law is warranted because the Detectives are entitled to qualified immunity likewise fails … “[Q]ualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability if their ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Allin v.

Hall Ex Rel. Lee v. Apfel

122 F. Supp. 2d 959 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 5, 2000

Sales’ care of Lemanda has been limited to physical examinations and immunizations. (Id.) Dr. Sales made no indication that she had performed any psychiatric or intelligence tests on the claimant. Dr. … In his decision, the ALJ applied § 112.05E, and does not indicate why Lemanda does not qualify for SSI under § 112.05D. The testifying medical expert, Dr.

Lippencott

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 15, 2025

The Court declines to grant qualified immunity at this stage City Defendants argue that qualified immunity is appropriate because it is not clearly established that recording a witness statement in a police report … Plaintiff responds that it is premature to grant qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage and it is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. [25] at 7.

Kitchen v. Tegtmeier

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

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As a result, Tegtmeier is not shielded by the qualified immunity doctrine. V.

FDIC v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Illinois

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.

Young v. Chicago Transit Authority

189 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 8, 2002

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of employment discrimination by showing by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified … As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to his promotion claim. 14 The record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff was not qualified to transition

Buchanan v. Pfister

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 25, 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 … “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 right was clearly established at

Bond v. Aguinaldo

256 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 17, 2003

Bond seeks injunctive relief ordering that he be “schedule[d] to see medical personnel with qualified expertise for his serious medical problems and conditions.” Dr. Doughty and Dr. … Bond clearly alleges an ongoing violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, (Comply 3), Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez base their argument on the fact that there is no ongoing violation with respect to them; Mr.

Herron v. City of Chicago

619 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1985

In a civil contempt proceeding such as this one, to establish a violation of the 1972 consent decree’s bar against adversely affecting any aspect of a governmental employee’s job because of any political reason or factor, … The promotions of Esteban and Miller were clearly substantially motivated by political considerations.

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.

Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc.

985 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 1997

The ITSA clearly preempts all common law claims that are based on the misappropriation of a trade secret. 765 ILCS 1065/8; see Thermodyne Food Serv. Prod., Inc. v. … A party, however, "must prove that it is heavily dependent upon the advice of another in order to establish such a duty.” Oil Express, 958 F.Supp. at 370 . How are these principles applicable in the instant case?

Rogers v. City Of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Defendants also assert that Winston is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Rogers’ excessive force claim.4 “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when … However, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is coextensive with their general argument about the merits of the excessive force claim.

Rudisill v. Flynn

470 F. Supp. 1269 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 31, 1979

Voting in local elections and referenda qualifies for constitutional protection. Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 , 90 S.Ct. 1990 , 26 L.Ed.2d 523 (1969); Kramer v. … The allegations of the complaint sufficiently establish the first requisite to such suits: state or local officials acting pursuant to their duties are acting “under color of state law” for the purposes of the Civil Rights

Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

194 F.R.D. 624 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2000

Plaintiffs now submit that portions of the order were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. … In the case of these documents, the court noted that “no other privilege has been established or is claimed.” (Memorandum Order, at 23).

Jackson v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 2024

“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 … Because fabrication of evidence violates “clearly established constitutional rights,” qualified immunity does not apply. See, e.g., Dominguez v.

Holman v. Carey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2022

Alternatively, Carey submits he should be awarded summary judgment because he is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from being monetarily liable unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America

787 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 1992

These are the establishments covered by title II.”); id. at 6534 (“I should like to emphasize that the establishments covered are very clearly described in section 201(b).”); id. at 6356; 110 Cong.Rec. 6557 (March 30, 1964 … In order to qualify as a “place of public accommodation” within the scope of Title II, an establishment must have a substantial connection to a concrete facility or location. 4.

Levin v. Greco

415 B.R. 663 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2009

A district court reviews bankruptcy decisions under Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; questions of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, while questions of law and mixed questions of … The question on appeal turns on a strictly legal issue: whether a child representative in Illinois state court proceedings qualifies for the domestic support exception to discharge under the Bankruptcy Act.

Tapia v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2019

d) Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity even if Tapia plausibly stated a claim against them. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 ‘for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional