Case law

Martinez v. Sun

896 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2012

They argue that the undisputed facts establish that they did not participate in a constitutional violation and, in the alternative, they assert qualified immunity for their actions. A. … The Court went on to reject the guards’ claims of qualified immunity because “Coleman clearly established a right to a prompt appearance after arrest pursuant to a warrant.” Id. at 582 .

Bragado v. City of Zion/Police Department

788 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1992

They alternatively argue that even if they failed to take adequate steps to prevent Bragado’s suicide or to protect her, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Bragado … See Hall at 404 (no qualified immunity regarding arrest on May 4, 1986). Consequently, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I is denied.

Carlson Ex Rel. Stuczynski v. Bremen High School

423 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2006

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 … For this reason, Defendants are not afforded the benefit of the qualified immunity defense at this stage of the case. IV.

Stringer v. City of Chicago

464 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 1979

City of Philadelphia, 454 F.Supp. 652 (E.D.Pa.1978); see also Monell, supra, 436 U.S. at 713 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (Powell, J., concurring), since Monell clearly establishes that a municipality must be viewed as a “person” under … The complaint as presently drafted may also be subject to a motion to dismiss under the closely related doctrine of qualified immunity.

Love v. Cook County, Illinois

82 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants request that this court strike Plaintiffs claim, against them in their official and individual capacities based on their qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Cooney v. Casady

652 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2009

Absolute and Qualified Immunity Only defendant Casady asserts the defenses of absolute, or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … Clearly she has.

Yachnin v. Village of Libertyville

803 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would … Because it was clearly established that Illinois drivers had no right to refuse chemical testing in the DUI context, but the procedures to compel breath or blood samples were not clearly established, the Court finds that

David Callahan v. Cheryl York

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2018

Even if a constitutional right had been violated, they continue, qualified immunity nevertheless applies since any right as it relates to Plaintiffs’ psychotherapy records was not clearly established at the time … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court - considers “(1) whether the plaintiff's allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established

Dandino v. Tieri

878 F. Supp. 129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1995

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The doctrine of qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis: (1) is the challenged conduct a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, was this constitutional right clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Wilbon v. Plovanich

67 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2014

Qualified Immunity: whether Defendants had arguable probable cause Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claims only. (Defs.’ Mem. at 8-9,14, 17-18.) … Plaintiffs accurately point out that Defendants have failed to raise, and thus waive, any argument as to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, that the respective constitutional rights were not clearly

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.

Hanania v. Loren-Maltese

319 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2004

Qualified immunity applies to Loren-Maltese and the Trustees unless: “(1) the conduct alleged in the complaint sets forth a constitutional violation and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time … Though1 plaintiffs have supported their claim of a constitutional violation, Loren-Maltese and the Trustees may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the' constitutional standards were not clearly established at the

Pasiewicz v. Lake County Forest Preserve District

81 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 1999

Defendants Hen-ning and Sandahl have moved to dismiss the claims against them, contending that the complaint establishes that they had probable cause to arrest Pasiewiez or at least that they are entitled to qualified immunity … Even if probable cause did not exist, the arresting officer is immune from suit if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed

Jones-Huff v. Hill

208 F. Supp. 3d 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2016

“Determination of whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the violation of a constitutional right occurred and whether the unconstitutionality of an officer’s conduct was clearly established in the law at the … A grant of summary judgment for reasons of qualified immunity would not be appropriate. II.

Steadman v. Hundley

421 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 1976

Because Illinois has no immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, we need not consider whether it has waived immunity by constitution or statute. … Although defendants recognize that the qualified immunity defense under § 1983 is factual, they insist that public officials are presumed to act in good faith.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. City of Chicago Heights

480 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 15, 1979

Strickland provides that officials cloaked with a qualified immunity will be immune from damages under section 1983 unless the plaintiff to the action establishes that the defendant acted with either a malicious intent to … In any event, plaintiffs’ complaint states a claim for damages, whether or not a qualified immunity is extended to defendant.

Sims v. Schultz

305 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2004

Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the complaint alleges facts which, if proven, would amount to a constitutional violation, and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Lynn and Schultz argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because even “[assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation ... the applicable constitutional standards were not clearly established

Panozzo v. Rhoads

711 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 10, 1989

Nonetheless, regardless of whether such conduct constitutes a due process violation, qualified immunity shields defendants from liability. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Cady v. South Suburban College

310 F. Supp. 2d 997 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2004

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil suit based on their discretionary functions except where such conduct violated ‘clearly established’ federal law.” Burns v. … The defendant officers here are entitled to qualified immunity based on their reasonable belief that the arrest was justified. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts 13-16.

Baser v. Tri-State Fire Protection District

69 F. Supp. 3d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

of qualified immunity. … But he has not shown that the right was clearly established.