Case law

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shohn Williams v. Chicago Board of Education

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2026

But Williams alleges that he was qualified for his position and met the Board’s legitimate performance expectations. ADEA Compl. ¶ 8. … Compl. ¶¶ 11–12, the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act immunizes the Board from liability unless Williams pleads that its conduct was “willful and wanton,” see 745 ILCS 10/3-108(a) (“[N]either

Bazewick v. Chao

174 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2001

We begin by considering Count III, which is clearly sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). … Plaintiff alleges that, even though he was qualified for a job vacancy in his department, his two female supervisors refused to promote him to that position and instead promoted a similarly situated but *780 less qualified

Bickerstaff v. Nordstrom, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 1999

Barry’s poor performance, even if proven, would not establish that Plaintiff was as qualified as he; since Plaintiff never held the position, there is no evidence that he would have outperformed Mr. Barry. … Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff was qualified for the job, Mr. Principato was far better qualified.

United States v. Chicago Title and Trust Company

242 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 1965

Goodrich, president of Chicago Title, stated Chicago Title was qualified to transact business only in the State of Illinois, and not in the State of Missouri. … Chicago Title is not qualified under the Revised Statutes of Missouri §§ 381.010 to 381.200, and has not made the deposits with the Missouri Superintendent of Insurance as required by § 381.030.

Jackson v. City of Chicago

293 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2003

City has clearly fulfilled that obligation by repeatedly notifying Jackson that she could apply for reassignment pursuant to City’s standard policy (C. St. ¶¶ 128-29, 132, 136). … Conclusion Because Jackson has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” she has not established a central element of her claim.

Kross v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

534 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 1982

Thus, at termination, Kross was two years shy of qualifying for a service pension, although he does qualify for a deferred service pension. … Judge Shadur stated: Section 502(a)(1) is clearly inapplicable to the facts alleged in Count IV.

Burdett v. Labriola

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2022

“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 … After all, qualified immunity closely depends “on the facts of the case” and a “complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Alvarado v.

ALEXIAN BROTHERS HEALTH PROVIDERS ASSOC., INC. v. Humana Health Plan, Inc.

608 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 21, 2009

Evidence should be excluded in limine only when it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds (Jimenez v. United States, No. 06 C 5943, 2008 WL 3849915 , at *1 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 14)). … It is thus the movant’s burden to establish that the evidence sought to be excluded is not admissible for any purpose (id.).

Butler v. United States

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 2024

The court agrees that, as currently written, Plaintiff’s allegations do not clearly assert “gross” or “willful and wanton” negligence.2 But that makes no difference in this case; Section 22/10 is not clearly applicable … But Plaintiff is not alleging harm arising from “imposition or establishment” of a quarantine.

Higgins v. Lake County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, The

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Hamm bases her last argument for dismissal on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Riggs v. United States

575 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 1983

statutory provisions as to “suffieien[cy]” and “last known address” would be both unnecessary and meaningless. 8 This ruling is all of a piece with the strict construction given to other statutes that waive the sovereign immunity … In short, Section 7609(b)(2) establishes a jurisdictional requirement, for it imposes a limit on suing the sovereign.

South v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

508 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 1981

It views the former as a general grant of a right of action for remedial relief and the latter as a special waiver of sovereign immunity raising additional jurisdictional requirements when damages are sought. … Under the plaintiff’s view, jurisdiction is appropriate once a violation has been established and the plaintiff is aggrieved by it.

Stewart v. Waukegan Housing Authority

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

Clearly Established “[G]overnmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct … Given the lack of any authority clearly establishing the violative nature of the defendants’ conduct, the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in defeating the application of qualified immunity.