Case law

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.”

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

Young v. Lane

733 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 1990

Relevant personal immunity defenses, such as the defendant reasonably relied on existing law, may be raised by the official. The official, in other words, may have qualified immunity from suit. Kentucky v. … The Supreme Court has established an objective test to be used in determining whether an official should be allowed to claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Jacobeit v. Rich Township High School District 227

673 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2009

District 227 and Rainey next contend that Rainey is entitled to qualified immunity. The law is clear that “qualified immunity questions should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation.” Anderson v. … were “clearly established” at the time in question.

Payton v. RUSH-PRESBYTERIAN-ST. LUKE'S MED. CENTER

82 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity We begin our analysis of qualified immunity with a brief description of the parties in this case. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), established that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from damages as long as their conduct did not "violate clearly established

Verser v. Elyea

113 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 2000

Page and Snyder claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Leslie v. Doyle

896 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1995

At the time that Doyle acted (which is the relevant date for qualified immunity purposes), it had clearly been established that placing an inmate into segregative custody for no reason violated the inmate's constitutional … It has only been afterward, through the Sandin decision, that what had previously been thought to be clearly established has been ruled otherwise — and that sequence is not the stuff of which a qualified immunity defense

James v. Ogilvie

310 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 1970

Clearly, public officials are not immune from suit when they allegedly violate the civil rights of citizens. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. … The right of a skilled, qualified worker not to be excluded from membership in a labor organization because of his race or skin color is a firm, established statutory right under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-l, and under

Bakalis v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 504

948 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 1996

The individual defendants further argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, contending that in light of the rule of necessity, it was not clearly established that any bias on their part violated Dr … See id. at 322-23 (governmental officials are accorded qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”) (citation

Rouei v. Village of Skokie

61 F. Supp. 3d 765 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2014

whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … In his opening brief, Groberski did not argue the second part of the qualified immunity test. Specifically, he did not argue that the governing constitutional standard was not clearly established. See Defs.’

Shih v. Taipei Economic & Cultural Representative Office

693 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 2010

The plaintiffs have alleged that TECRO is not immune under the FSIA based on the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) TECRO'contends that it is immune from suit under the FSIA. … Thus, under the FSIA, TECRO is presumptively immune from suit unless one of the enumerated exceptions to immunity applies.

Salaita v. Kennedy

118 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the University argues that the individual Defendants are all entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that they are sued in their individual capacities. … “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

Collins v. Board of Education of North Chicago Community Unit School District 187

792 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 31, 2011

Tort Immunity Act Defendants argue that all of Plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the “Tort Immunity Act” or the “Act”), 745 ILCS 10/1-101 … Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs amended complaint sounds in tort, the Tort Immunity Act grants Defendants immunity. Count IV for defamation per quod clearly sounds in tort and is dismissed with prejudice.

Caine v. Burge

897 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 14, 2012

The court further found that the prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged pretrial activities because, if proven, the plaintiffs’ asserted claims constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … established due process rights.”

Big Bear Cartage, Inc. v. Air Cargo, Inc.

419 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 1976

In short, the service contracts are authorized by an agreement to which an air carrier is a signatory, and qualify for the § 1384 immunity. … Plaintiff does not dispute that Agreement No. 1041, as an agreement among air carriers, qualifies for the § 1384 immunity.

VODAK v. City of Chicago

624 F. Supp. 2d 933 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants first assert that summary judgment should be granted in their favor because qualified immunity protects their actions on the night of the march. … . -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 821-22 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). 4 Qualified immunity operates to shield officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Stokes v. City of Chicago

660 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 22, 1987

However, the Supreme Court expressly qualified its opinion. … Lopez, 790 F.2d 44, 45 (7th Cir.1986), the Seventh Circuit stated that state’s attorneys enjoy “a qualified immunity when performing administrative or investigative duties, but an absolute immunity when performing a quasi-judicial

Hamilton v. Thezan

710 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Overstreet v. Myers

75 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 22, 1999

Such immunity exists insofar as the conduct in question “does not violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Id. … Sergeant Myers is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Ms.

Bogosian v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200

73 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 1999

Bogosian cannot establish the elements of an Illinois state tortious interference with contractual relations claim. … The defendants argue that the teachers’ statements were not tortious because they were protected by some (1) absolute or (2) qualified privilege or (3) the state Tort Immunity Act, and were in any event (4) admittedly true