Case law

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

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.”

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.

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.

Kirkman v. Latkowski

768 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 10, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendant also has moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs Marlon and *241 Indya Kirkman’s Fourth Amendment vehicle search claims based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … 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

Johnson v. Collins

58 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Doctrine Applied As noted, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges the deprivation of a constitutional right, a right that was “clearly established” when the state … The second prong of the Kemats qualified immunity test is likewise satisfied because the right to suitable foster care placement was “clearly established” in K.H. ex rel Murphy v.

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.

David v. Village of Oak Lawn

954 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1996

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 statutory … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at

Jennifer Y. Ex Rel. Harris v. Velazquez

434 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 2006

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis is “to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time Velazquez allegedly violated that right. See id. The answer to this question is no. … Jennifer “may not escape the doctrine of qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established, but very broad constitutional right.” Bakalis v.

Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Village of Park Forest

970 F. Supp. 2d 828 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2013

“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 … The second sentence states a conclusion without providing reasoning or authority, so the Village’s argument on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity is forfeited. See Arlin-Golf, LLC v.

Draine v. Bauman

708 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 16, 2010

The Qualified Immunity Argument Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry. A police officer might nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that there has been a constitutional violation and that the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the violation, Mannoia v.

Bibart v. Stachowiak

888 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1995

Qualified immunity will shield the officers from suit if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Bibart’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed … The district court rejected the officers’ contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the officers appealed.

Doe v. Bobbitt

698 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 4, 1988

They say that they have such immunity since Michelle did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free of the abuse she is alleged to have suffered. Michelle cites Brooks v. … The defendants thus have no qualified immunity from any civil damages liability that may result from Michelle’s § 1983 claims.

Alvarez v. Wilson

431 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 1977

or qualified immunity. … immunity itself should be qualified or absolute.

Sarantakis v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

969 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … To determine whether qualified immunity is applicable in a case, the court must make a two part inquiry: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation; and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established

Alber v. Illinois Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities

816 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1993

Because Albers again strike out on demonstrating any violation of constitutional rights, the absence of a viola *1307 tion of “clearly established” rights (the qualified immunity standard) follows a fortiori. … This is how Albers’ current Mem. 11 sets forth its topic heading on qualified immunity: The wrongful and continued detention of Ron and Cameron violated the clearly established right to be free from unlawful seizure resulting

Davis-El v. O'LEARY

626 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 1986

In addition, they argue that the prison officials enjoy qualified immunity. In Walker v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738.

Alvarado v. Battaglia

539 F. Supp. 2d 1022 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 2008

If the plaintiff meets this burden, the Court must determine whether the particular constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Fiorenzo v. Nolan

755 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 1991

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 … Given this holding the court need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional standards allegedly violated were clearly established at the time in question. .

Finch v. Chapman

785 F. Supp. 1277 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 1992

We have no choice but to rely on the facts submitted by Chapman. 2 The undisputed facts establish that Chapman is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages liability. … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-step approach to qualified immunity questions, based on Harlow and Anderson .