Case law

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.

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

Saunders-El v. Tsoulos

1 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1998

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right for MSTA members to participate in Ramadan at Joliet. … Qualified immunity is available to shield government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Greene v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

79 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2015

Because Plaintiffs’ right not to lose their job assignments for political reasons was not clearly established, however, Toni Preckwinkle is entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their right was clearly, established. President Preckwinkle is, therefore, entitled to ■ qualified immunity.

Carter v. Dixon

718 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 7, 1989

Initially, defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity; but such immunity does not protect an official *1390 whose conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v. … For this reason, if plaintiffs can prove their allegations that defendants used unreasonable force, then defendants cannot properly invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity.

El-Uri v. City of Chicago

186 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 2002

The two detectives invoke qualified immunity as a defense. … The individual officers have no qualified immunity defense here. C.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Village of South Barrington

958 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for Section 1983 liability, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct constitutes a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established

Atkins v. City of Chicago

441 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

Qualified Immunity State officials enjoy qualified immunity and “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … There is a two-step test for an official’s entitlement to qualified immunity (Miller v.

Bianchi v. McQueen

917 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” … The qualified immunity analysis comprises a two-part inquiry: (i) “whether the facts alleged show that the state actor violated a constitutional right,” and (ii) “whether the right was clearly established.” Hanes v.

Owusu v. Grzyb

749 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 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 … The Dolton and River-dale officer defendants correctly respond, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that absent circumstances indicating an unlawful entry, a police

DeLaFont v. Beckelman

264 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2003

Time Line of Case Law A state actor is shielded from liability if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity As a general rule, courts engage in a two-part inquiry to determine whether a defendant is immune from damages.

Augustine v. Edgar

576 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1983

“Qualified immunity” is the norm for executive officials in general. … The court discussed the defense of qualified immunity for government officials.

Thurman v. Village of Hazel Crest

570 F. Supp. 2d 1019 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2008

The test for qualified immunity is whether: (1) “the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a constitutional right;” and (2) the “constitutional right was clearly established … it would not violate a clearly established right.

Better Broadview Party v. Walters

159 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2016

“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 … “A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was clearly established.” Id.

Kozar v. Munoz

230 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 59 at 13-14. “Two central questions must be addressed in the course of determining whether qualified immunity is available.” … But for qualified immunity purposes, the distinction makes no difference; a detainee’s right to be free from deliberate indifference was clearly established under both sets of circumstances.

Nitschneider v. Miller

821 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity 4 Next, Miller contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages relating to the disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity serves to shield officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability, unless their decisions violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. 5 Harlow v.

Ruffino v. Sheahan

61 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1999

The defense of qualified immunity was first raised in the motion to dismiss. … The reasons for the court’s denial of qualified immunity are clearly stated in its court’s opinion on qualified immunity.

Lela v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2024

Thus, whether on the merits or via qualified immunity, which requires a plaintiff to establish a constitutional violation, see Reed v. … Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2018) (immunity attaches where there is no constitutional violation even if right was clearly established), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Spalding v. City of Chicago

24 F. Supp. 3d 765 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2014

Qualified Immunity Kirby also argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 59 at 7. … “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

King v. Evans

230 F. Supp. 3d 874 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 2016

The law of qualified immunity is easily summarized. … “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, meaning that they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or