Case law

Penn v. Chicago State University

162 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

clearly established at the time in question.” … Penn’s right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time he was arrested.

Rebolar v. City of Chicago

897 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Catlin v. … are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lasalvia v. City of Evanston

806 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 2011

. § 1983 alleging violations of constitutional rights, qualified immunity shields an official from liability for civil damages, provided that the illegality of the official’s conduct was not clearly established at the time … In determining whether Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide whether: (1) the facts as alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established

Schor v. Daley

563 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2008

a constitutional right; [and] (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … The Tort Immunity Act shields the Defendant officers from liability for the state law false arrest claim for the same reasons that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the federal false arrest claim.

Montanez v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 2018

This holding is based on the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether a constitutional violation was alleged—and not the second— whether the right was clearly established at the time of violation. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. (emphasis in original)); Fields II, 740 F.3d at 1114.

Guy v. State of Illinois

958 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Pack and Nader contend that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1983 claim against them is warranted on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The determination of whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity often involves factual issues regarding defendants’ conduct, and therefore, “it is rarely appropriate to address the question of qualified immunity

Munoz v. Rivera

169 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2015

Finally, plaintiff argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the due process right he claims defendants violated was well established at the time of their alleged conduct. II. … And in Fields II, the court “made clear that fabricating evidence, including witness testimony, violates a clearly established constitutional right, such that qualified immunity does not shield the manufacturers of such evidence

Larue v. Fairman

780 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 6, 1991

Whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the action, in light of legal rules clearly established at the time the action was taken. … In support of their claim of qualified immunity, defendants contend the following: a) it is not clearly established that plaintiff has a right [to] legal counsel and law materials; b) it is not clearly established that plaintiff

Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

420 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2006

Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, the individual Defendants assert that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from this lawsuit. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[i]f the law did not put the [public official] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

E & E Construction Co. v. Illinois

674 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 26, 1987

And even if they do not, the classifications must still withstand “rational basis” scrutiny- Qualified Immunity Each Individual Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless her or his actions in enforcing … the Act violated a clearly established right (Harlow v.

Serrano v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 2018

This holding is based on the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether a constitutional violation was alleged—and not the second— whether the right was clearly established at the time of violation. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. (emphasis in original)); Fields II, 740 F.3d at 1114.

El Ranchito, Inc. v. City of Harvey

207 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2002

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … In support of their claim of qualified immunity, defendants argue that the law was at least not clearly established that the police defendants could not make a protective sweep of El Ranchito to protect the inspector.

Steinbrecher v. Oswego Police Officer Dickey

138 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “ ‘[if] their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wollin v. … standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Patrick v. City of Chicago

662 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity should be granted when the officials’ conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The dispute over qualified immunity turns on whether the right to privacy that Defendants are alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs alleged injury.

Thompson v. Village of Monee

110 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 2015

Namely, Thompson has not met the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis because he has failed to show that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706, 731 (7th Cir.2013) (In order to establish defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to produce a case “clearly establishing] [the right] in a particularized sense, rather

Warren v. Swanson

69 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 4, 1999

to qualified immunity. … The" plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established “before the defendant acted or failed to act.” Id.

Brandon v. Village of Maywood

157 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 2001

Parker’s arrest, the officers may be entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Eversole v. … The existence of a clearly established right is purely a question of law, Apostol v.

Bogacz v. Lt. Holmes

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 2024

Qualified immunity Lt. Holmes's argument for qualified immunity turns on the following contentions: (1) all he did was respond was respond to Mr. … Qualified immunity is not a basis for summary judgment when the defense turns on disputed facts. See, e.g., Gupta v.

Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education

619 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2007

WELLS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Also pending is defendant Wells’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Without attempting to suggest a constitutionally permissible basis for suppressing such speech, Wells contends he is entitled to qualified immunity because no case establishes that a student must be allowed to wear a t-shirt

Brown v. Knapp

156 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

Qualified immunity will protect an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believes that probable cause existed. Burns v. Reed, 44 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir.1995). … Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether Officer Knapp is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, as mentioned above.