Case law

Bennett v. Village of Oak Park

748 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context presented

Qvyjt v. Lin

953 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 1997

They further contend that, with respect to Count III, they áre entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly established that professors at a public university violate a graduate student’s First Amendment rights when … ■Having concluded that plaintiff has rebutted the first prong of the qualified immunity defense, the court turns to the second prong — whether the constitutional standards were clearly .established at the time defendants

Henderson v. Harris

672 F. Supp. 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1987

Defendant Jenkins’ duty with respect to inmates held in custody at the MCC has been clearly established. In Estelle v. … The Supreme Court, however, has defined qualified immunity as protecting an official who, in performing a discretionary function, acted in such a way as not to “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Meer v. Graham

524 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 2007

Although qualified immunity is an affirma *1055 tive defense, in certain circumstances it is appropriate to resolve the applicability of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss. Jacobs v. … established, or that the law concerning Meer’s retaliatory discharge claim was not clearly established. 8 .

Kennedy v. Hardiman

684 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1988

suspicion” standard was not “clearly established” for searches of correctional officers at correctional institutions. … may be en *545 titled to judgment on his qualified immunity defense after trial.

Purtell v. Mason

412 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, Officer Mason contends that he is protected from this civil lawsuit by qualified immunity. … Under the second qualified immunity prong, it is the Purtells’ burden to establish that their First Amendment right was “clearly established.” Id.

Armstrong v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 15, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: (1) whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct

Robinson v. Gerritson

210 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2002

Qualified immunity shields defendant police officers from liability where their conduct (1) did not violate any clearly established rights and (2) was objectively reasonable (Biddle v. … But as the earlier quotation from Humphrey teaches, Gerritson need not establish probable cause as a matter of law to take shelter within the mantle of qualified immunity.

Hamilton v. Peters

919 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials engaged in discretionary functions from suit “as long as their conduct does not violate a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right ‘of which a reasonable … were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Benson v. United States

969 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 7, 1997

immunity argument, since it finds that Morton also is entitled to qualified immunity. … time in question clearly established that Morton could deny Benson permission to travel outside of the Northern District of Illinois as a valid parole condition.

Taylor v. Paladines

983 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 28, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit for damages if their actions are reasonable “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Neither party disputes that the constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause was well established at the time of Taylor’s arrest. 2 Taylor must therefore demonstrate the- second prong of qualified immunity

Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

429 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2006

Defendants nonetheless contend that dismissal is appropriate in this case because the defendants did not violate a clearly established right and are therefore legally entitled to qualified im *944 munity. … Grayeb, 395 F.3d 761 (7th Cir.2005), in which the Seventh Circuit directed the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on a class of one claim, concluding that the right at issue was not clearly established

Love v. Sheahan

156 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

In the context of a qualified immunity defense, binding precedent is not needed to clearly establish a right. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988); Brokaw v. … Because it was clearly established during the time that Love was held in segregation that Love was entitled to certain procedural protections, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Griffin v. City of Chicago

406 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2005

Under qualified immunity, “ ‘public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because qualified immunity is both an immunity from suit and a defense to liability, we should resolve the issue of qualified immunity “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Saucier v.

Lifton v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

290 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome assertion of a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Flenner v. Sheahan

920 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1996

to qualified immunity.” … Accordingly, Sheahan is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they possessed a clearly established right to avoid patronage dismissal. See Harlow v.

Smith v. Burge

222 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 28, 2016

“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.” … When evaluating qualified immunity, courts consider two questions: (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations show that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established

Sanders v. Marovich

102 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2000

and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time? Forman v.. Richmond Police Dep’t., 104 F.3d 950 , 957 (7th Cir.1997). The alleged conduct would constitute a violation. Mr. … However, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Powell v. City of Berwyn

68 F. Supp. 3d 929 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government .actors from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … When making a qualified immunity determination, a court considers (1) whether the [evidence] show[s] that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Gavin v. McGinnis

866 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 24, 1994

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The court also notes that the doctrine of qualified immunity could protect Schomig as well, although he has not raised the defense as of yet. In Hunter v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional