Case law

Arrington v. City of Chicago, Illinois

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Hernandez v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Stennis v. Armstrong

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when their conduct doesn’t violate a clearly established right. Smith v. … Clearly established doctrines place the constitutionality of conduct “beyond debate,” and qualified immunity protects officers with the exception of “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Surti v. G.D. Searle & Co.

935 F. Supp. 980 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 29, 1996

Searle argues in its motion that Surti cannot establish a prima facie case because she cannot show either that she was qualified for the position (the second element) or that the person given the position had similar or lesser … Nevertheless, Surti is advised to carefully consider the merits of dropping the ADEA claim before trial in order to focus more clearly on her Title VII claim.

United States v. One 1992 Lexus Sc400 Vin Jt8uz30c2n0017133

167 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 2001

She thus seeks to qualify as an innocent owner under the “consent” prong of the defense. … omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.”

Scheidler v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2019

to qualified immunity.” … Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage, either.

Hernandez v. Dart

635 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2009

First, as discussed below, Judge Donnelly is entitled to judicial immunity. … Accordingly, he is entitled to immunity for those acts. K.

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.

Doud v. Hodge

146 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 1956

This conduct is clearly not of such a nature as to bar the plaintiffs from relief. … Nor do we suggest that the legislature could not establish reasonable standards of financial responsibility which all would be required to meet to qualify for an exemption.

Burroughs v. Hills

564 F. Supp. 1007 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 8, 1983

Defendants have argued that plaintiffs do not satisfy *1012 the criteria for implication of a private right of action established in Cort v. … Here, plaintiffs seek to hold HUD itself to the standards it has established. See Estrada v. Hills, 401 F.Supp. 429, 437-38 (N.D.Ill. 1975).

Davis v. Lake County Jail

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2021

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

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer

578 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 23, 1983

That provision clearly allows for FDIC liability if the requisite four conditions are met. … actions sounding in tort, not contract, as to which courts have held Congress did not waive sovereign immunity to such claims: FDIC v.

Phaup v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc.

761 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 5, 1991

In each instance, the most important criterion that Fitzpatrick must be able to show is that she was qualified, both to establish her prima facie case and thereafter to refute Pepsi’s explanation — which it advances in both … situations — that she was not qualified.

Alcorn v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2022

Defendants assert that Officer Wlodarski is protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity “shields federal and state officials from money damages.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish a violation of a constitutional right, and the court must decide if the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

McInnis v. Shapiro

293 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 24, 1969

Clearly, there are wide variations in the amount of money available for Illinois' school districts, both on a per pupil basis and in absolute terms. … Nor does the Constitution establish the rigid guideline of equal dollar expenditures for each student.

McEachern v. Civiletti

502 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 4, 1980

When doctors at Cook County informed plaintiff that they could do nothing further to improve his condition, plaintiff attempted to escape, allegedly to seek out better-qualified physicians. … Defendants contend that the affidavit and medical records belie plaintiff’s allegations and establish that plaintiff was afforded frequent and extensive treatment throughout the duration of his stay at MCC.

Stevenson v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Hernandez v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Todd v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of Steel Workers of Chicago

223 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 16, 1963

Without attempting here to examine its motivations, a study of the Court’s decisions relative to this law of sovereign immunity would clearly indicate precedent upon which to rest the present action against both Tesauro, … I now legally conclude from the instant facts it is not only clearly established that such a relationship exists but in the language of the Supreme Court a relationship involving the Federal Government and the State, through

United States Gypsum Company v. United States

304 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 11, 1969

The government’s main challenge to the rates as established is that those rates were established for a 5,600 ton vessel and the vessels being used by Panama were larger and faster than the 5,600 ton vessel and therefore would … . § 482 ) in order to clearly reflect income for federal tax purposes.

Green v. Village of Schaumburg

676 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 12, 1988

Door-to-door solicitation clearly is entitled to First Amendment protection. Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632 , 100 S.Ct. 826, 833 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). … Defendants Alley and Christianson argue that they are entitled to a qualified immunity defense, see Harlow v.

Adams v. Board of Education Harvey School District 152

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 18, 2018

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from liability when their actions do not violate “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … An individual, even a public employee, had a clearly established right to free speech. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421. Thus, this Court finds that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this record. Cf.