Case law

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.

Whitt v. City of Rockford

700 F. Supp. 391 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 1988

If their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Bradshaw v. Zebella, 1987 U.S. Dist. … But the law is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity unless it has spoken to cases involving facts clearly analogous to those facing the defendant at the time he took his challenged action.

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

Mirshak v. Joyce

652 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 1987

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the government official from liability for civil damages insofar as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, Joyce has failed to establish or even argue that the actions he took were of an executive or administrative nature and therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

K.H. Ex Rel. Murphy v. Suter

765 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1991

The court denied that portion of defendants’ motion which sought dismissal on qualified immunity grounds pursuant to Harlow v. … On September 24, 1990, the Seventh Circuit affirmed this court’s qualified immunity ruling in part and remanded the case to this court to “determine how much of the [first amended] complaint survives our analysis of immunity

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.

Nelson v. City of Elmhurst

691 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1988

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Nelson has the burden of establishing that Officer Kazarian violated a constitutional right that was clearly established on May 8, 1987. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988).

Spiegel v. Cortese

966 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1997

Qualified Immunity The availability of qualified immunity is generally a legal question for the court to decide “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Forman v. … Despite this clearly established law, Córtese and Kajari would still be entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have mistakenly believed that there was probable cause to arrest Spiegel.

Yoder v. Ryan

318 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … These are clearly established rights any reasonable person would be aware of. Mr. Frederking has not established that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Chan v. City of Chicago

777 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 9, 1991

The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Chan’s transfer that it was unconstitutional. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Hosty v. Governors State University

174 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from monetary liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … However, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants’ conduct constitutes editorial control, and clearly violates established First Amendment law. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

A.G. ex rel. Sassak v. City of Park Ridge

198 F. Supp. 3d 856 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 2016

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right by showing that the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person would have known of the unconstitutionality of the conduct at issue.”).

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.

Puccini v. United States

978 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 1997

Plaintiff does not dispute the inapplicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, but she contends that those defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and that her due process rights were violated. We disagree. … Plaintiff characterizes the clearly-established right that was violated as the right not to be detained beyond the expiration of her sentence.

Gwin v. Curry

161 F.R.D. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 1995

AD 1 seeks to assert qualified immunity for Curry because “a reasonable police officer in the position of the Defendant reasonably could have believed that his conduct was within the constitutional limits that were clearly … established at the time.”

Krocka v. Riegler

958 F. Supp. 1333 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil damages insofar, as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In other words, to defeat Bransfield’s qualified immunity defense to the Fourth Amendment claim, Krocka argues that Bransfield violated the ADA — clearly *1345 established statutory law of which a reasonable person would

Hill v. City of Chicago

61 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2014

While it is true, as Hill points out, that the rights to be free from unreasonable seizures, searches, and force were all clearly established in June 2012, that high level of generality is not where the “clearly established … An officer is immune if a reasonable officer “could have believed” his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officer. Abbott v.

McGreal v. Ostrov

227 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 2002

Qualified Immunity: Saucier recently reiterated that qualified immunity is a two step analysis. See 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Snooks are also entitled to qualified immunity because the law surrounding McGreal’s claim was not clearly established at the time of the events. On this point, the Supreme Court’s Saucier analysis is critical.

Alm v. Moreth

694 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 1988

and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question? Wade v. Hegner, 804 F.2d 67, 70 (7th Cir. 1986). … We thérefore find it unnecessary to ascertain whether the shocks-the-conscience standard was clearly established in April 1985.

Gary v. City of North Chicago

160 F. Supp. 3d 1035 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2016

When a plaintiff shows that excessive force was used against him, to overcome an asserted defense of qualified immunity the plaintiff must further establish “that it was objectively unreasonable for the officer to believe … A constitutional right is “clearly established” for the purpose of qualified immunity where “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates