Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,132 results
0.80s
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2021
In the absence of any clearly established precedent forbidding the officers from taking action under these circumstances, Defendants remain entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. … Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 491 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that a plaintiff overcoming a qualified immunity defense must show that the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2020
“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Minchuk, 910 F.3d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A] dispute of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of force may prevent us from determining whether an individual’s clearly established rights have
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2022
As to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, the right Brown is accused of violating was clearly established long before the September 2017 fight that gave rise to this case. … violated a clearly established right.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown214 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 17, 2016
qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2025
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … As the Seventh Circuit has explained: [A] right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if its contours were sufficiently definite that
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2018
When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show two things: (1) that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at … Ct. at 552 (a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2020
However, qualified immunity shields the Defendant Officers from Hudson’s claim because they did not violate clearly established law. See White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2023
Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Qualified immunity is available to protect the Officers from liability unless it can be shown by Plaintiff that the Officers violated a clearly established right, based on closely analogous cases illustrating that the Officers
Cited 0 timesUnknown704 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1989
qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity relieves them of liability because at the time of their alleged actions there was no established case law upholding a First Amendment claim for retaliation as petty and far removed
Cited 1 timesPublished892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012
Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional
Cited 19 timesPublished664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987
Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.
Vacated in part, on other grounds by McGaughey v. City of Chicago, 690 F. Supp. 707 (1988)Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025
To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.
Cited 0 timesUnknown21 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2014
Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional *970 rights of which a reasonable person would … Count I *974 is dismissed because Anderson did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 1 timesPublishedGrove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Commission
642 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 1986
All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 2. … Qualified Immunity All defendants seek insulation from Section 1983 damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedWright v. Department of Children and Family Services
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2024
Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 734–35 (7th Cir. 2014) 5 Defendants again assert that qualified immunity precludes Wright from proceeding on his § 1983 claim. … LeVan, 967 F.3d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014
Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.
Cited 8 timesPublished690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988
clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Cited 3 timesPublishedMitchell v. Village Of Matteson
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2020
Qualified Immunity Dumais and Reyes argue that, even if Mitchell has stated a claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity on both § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 546.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024
[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2025
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 … Grizzle] violated th[is] clearly established right[].” Id. Sgt.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna