Case law

Estrada v. Hills

401 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 8, 1975

If the actions were beyond this boundary, clearly the officer is not immune. But does immunity automatically attach if the official was acting within the outer perimeter of his authority? … Defendants Waner, Miller, Ice and Worsek have submitted affidavits which they claim establish their immunity.

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.

McCall-Bey v. Kirner

233 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As a preliminary matter, because the defense of qualified immunity only applies to officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, a defendant claiming qualified immunity “must demonstrate objective circumstances

Hartnett v. Schmit

501 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1980

The only defense raised by defendants is that of qualified immunity. … The Court is mindful of the fact that summary judgment should rarely be granted in cases where qualified immunity is raised as a defense to a civil rights claim.

Gray v. Taylor

714 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ asserted defense of qualified immunity is groundless. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Anderson v. Cornejo

284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2003

It was held that “violation of an administrative rule or regulation does not preclude applying qualified immunity where the pertinent constitutional law is not clearly established.” Id. at 265-66 (citing Davis v. … Plaintiffs presently argue that Anderson IV’s qualified immunity holding as to when the some level of suspicion standard for standard patdown searches was clearly established, see 199 F.R.D. at 256-57 , should be reconsidered

Hall v. City of Chicago

989 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 2013

Qualified Immunity The Defendant Officers argue that they are protected by qualified immunity. … “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

Kies v. City of Aurora

156 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 16, 2001

Smith argues that, even if he did not have probable cause to arrest Kies, he is entitled to qualified immunity for this arrest. … He also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity based on these offenses. The court will address each offense in turn, i.

McNamara v. City of Chicago

867 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 2, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The individual defendants here are clearly entitled to qualified immunity. No court has held that affirmative action is per se unconstitutional.

Grady v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University

78 F. Supp. 3d 768 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 2015

Qualified immunity insulates state actors from civil lawsuits “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Sullivan v. … First, there is nothing to suggest that the Grievance Committee Defendants are in need of any protection beyond qualified immunity to insulate them from harassment or intimidation.

Torrence v. Musilek

899 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 1995

Qualified immunity Defendants also contend that they are immune from damages and suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … While the court’s foregoing conclusion disposes of defendants’ motion, the court briefly will address defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Reese v. May

955 F. Supp. 869 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 20, 1996

immunized from punitive damages liability under § 2-102, and (2) public employees who qualified as public officials under the common law rules were entitled to complete immunity against both compensatory and punitive damages … Clearly, these two causes of action require different showings.

Hamilton v. Gavin

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 2023

“Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cnty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v. … Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability for actions which do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Unity Ventures v. County of Lake

631 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1986

If the law was not clearly established, the public official will be immune. … Therefore, since it finds that the applicable law was and is not clearly established, the Court holds that the village trustees and Mayor Schroeder are entitled to qualified immunity from damages relating to possible violations

Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21

714 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 1989

Qualified immunity, as an affirmative defense, will be an appropriate ground for dismissal if it “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” Quiller v. … (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) (qualified immunity is an affirmative defense). The defendants’ qualified immunity defense does not appear on the face of the complaint.

International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris

76 F. Supp. 3d 767 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 2014

Finally, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Awalt v. Marketti

74 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2014

A “plaintiff seeking to defeat a defense of qualified immunity must establish two things: first, that she has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right; and second, that the right in question was ‘clearly established … Qualified Immunity Dr. Cullinan and Nurse Clauson also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Ramos

918 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 1996

Ramos does, however, contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. As the defendant has offered no challenge to the merits, we address directly the issue of qualified immunity. … “clearly established” at the time the alleged deprivation occurred.

Spalding v. City of Chicago

186 F. Supp. 3d 884 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To remove the shield of qualified immunity from the defendant officers, the constitutional right that they allegedly violated must at the time of the violation have been clearly established “in a particularized sense” and

Manos v. Caira

162 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

police officers do not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights. … Further, because defendants do not address whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, the Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity argument has not been properly raised