Case law

Bracey v. Helene Curtis, Inc.

780 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 13, 1992

Bracey disputes Archibald’s view that Bracey was nervous at her interview with him, or that her interview was otherwise deficient, but Bracey offers only her own *572 deposition testimony, which is both self-serving and clearly … Although “by” can also mean “before," the court finds that "not later than” is a well established meaning upon which Bracey could reasonably rely.

Max M. v. Thompson

592 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 13, 1984

Thus, the plaintiffs’ procedural rights under the EAHCA were clearly violated. 9 *1449 C. … social workers, psychologists, guidance counselors, or other qualified personnel.” 8 .

Calhoun v. Colvin

959 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 12, 2013

There is no discussion at all of Calhoun’s neck wound, and no specific mention of what listing the wound could potentially meet or of the interaction between that wound and the other impairments that it clearly exacerbated … independently considered] the criteria of the pertinent physical listings (including the listings for the musculoskeletal, respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, endocrine, neurological, immune

Golbert v. Roberts

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “[T]wo questions are pertinent to the defense of qualified immunity: whether the facts alleged show that the state actor violated a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established.” Hanes v.

Armstrong v. Vera E McDonnell

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2022

So, when prosecutors act like investigators or police officers, they are entitled only to qualified immunity; when they act as advocates, they receive absolute immunity. … But all of those alleged acts qualify as acts in pursuit of prosecutorial functions. First, presenting to a grand jury, as Villareal did, is a core prosecutorial function clearly protected by absolute immunity.

Federal Trade Commission v. American Tax Relief LLC

751 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2010

“In order to establish that an act or practice is deceptive, the FTC must establish that the representations, omissions, or practices likely would mislead consumers, acting reasonably, to their detriment.” FTC v. … not qualify under IRS standard.”

Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees

8 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1998

To succeed in a Section 1983 action, Plaintiff must establish that the conduct complained of was earned out under color of state law and that this conduct deprived him of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the … Plaintiff's employment contract clearly created a contractual right of employment for the term of the contract.

Davila

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Catlin v. … Nor is Guevara shielded by qualified immunity for this conduct.

Georgouses v. NaTec Resources, Inc.

963 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 1997

Clearly, the majority of the relevant documentary evidence will be located in Houston, the majority of potential witnesses are in or around Houston, and two of the three individual defendants are residents of Texas. … It is clearly settled, however, that when transferring the action under Section 1404(a), the transferor court is not first required to establish personal jurisdiction. See The Coats Company, Inc. v.

Federal Trade Commission v. US Sales Corp.

785 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 1992

“[T]o establish that an act or practice is deceptive, the FTC must establish that the representations, omissions, or practices likely would mislead consumers, acting reasonably, to their detriment.” F.T.C. v. … In light of World Travel Vacation Brokers , there is no question that this case qualifies as a “proper case” for permanent injunctive relief.

Heimann v. Roadway Express, Inc.

228 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 8, 2002

qualified for his job; and (4) the disability caused the adverse employment action. … In order to bring a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must establish “that he suffers from a disability as defined under the Act; that he was otherwise qualified for the job; that he was involved in programs

G.M. Harston Construction Co. v. City of Chicago

209 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 2002

rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion. … Even there, however, that standard is qualified. For example, in Best Foam Fabricators, Inc. v.

Schussler v. Employment Consultants, Inc.

333 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 22, 1971

That it was the intent of Congress to exclude such businesses from the term “retail or service establishment” is clearly demonstrated by the legislative history of the 1949 amendments and by judicial construction given said … Such establishments not having been traditionally regarded as retail or service establishments cannot under any circumstances qualify as a “retail or service establishment” within the statutory definition.

Golbert v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2025

Thus, while “[a]n officer in an individual-capacity action . . . may be able to assert personal immunity defenses,” such as qualified immunity, “sovereign immunity ‘does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individual … at 295, such that class certification is clearly inappropriate, Hill, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 829.

Graves v. Board of Education Plainfield Community Consolidated District 202

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 16, 2024

Instead, McGrath provided cases that establish that initiating criminal charges and appearing at a probable cause hearing qualify as core prosecutorial functions. … Indiana, 786 F.3d 510, 519–20 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Unless it is certain from the face of the complaint that any 5 McGrath did not raise a qualified immunity argument, so the Court need not address qualified immunity.

Friendship Medical Center, Ltd. v. Chicago Board of Health

367 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1973

Clearly, they are not those of the individual plaintiff. Rather, they are the rights of his patients who are not parties to this suit. … (b) The Abortion Service shall be supervised by a physician in charge who shall be a qualified obstetrician or, in a service which does not have a qualified obstetrician, by a qualified surgeon.

Scotch Whisky Ass'n v. Majestic Distilling Co.

681 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 1988

The “localization” test is more clearly defined, and it is less manipulable. On the facts of this case, however, it does not matter which test the Court applies. … Carlson’s affidavit on the ground that the affidavit does not establish that Mr.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jakubowski

912 F. Supp. 1073 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1996

In this sense, Jakubowski clearly had contact with the issuing thrifts. … Given the plain meaning of the OTS regulation, the complaint clearly alleges that Jakubowski’s conduct violated the regulation.

Albarran v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 17, 2022

To the extent Defendants seek dismissal of the individual capacity claim against Defendant Dart on qualified immunity grounds, (see Dkt. 27 at pgs. 5-8), consideration of this defense is premature. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Pryor v. Cajda

662 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 1987

The defendants confuse the doctrine of “exhaustion of state remedies” with the rule that where the defendants are not acting pursuant to an established state procedure, a procedural due process claim does not lie if the plaintiff … It is true as a general proposition that a claim for malicious prosecution is insufficient to state a § 1983 claim unless the corresponding factual circumstances clearly implicate the deprivation of a constitutionally-protected