Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,132 results
0.63s
364 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 13, 1973
This Court has recently considered the doctrine of municipal immunity and the immunity of supervisory personnel in Boyd v. Adams, No. 73 C 403, 364 F.Supp. 1180 , decided on June 29,1973. … The allegation, however, must fail, for it does not establish a violation or deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Cited 16 timesPublished193 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 1961
The Court concludes that Melekh cannot qualify as a “public minister” as the term is used in the Constitution and in the statute. … Judge Herlands describes the immunity as a “functional” immunity, but defendant states that description is ambiguous in that a functional immunity may refer to immunity from arrests for acts done in the exercise of one’s
Cited 18 timesPublished259 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 23, 2003
is protected by this immunity); see Bond v. … Nawrot has pointed to evidence in the record that he has collapsed at work and is unable to think clearly when suffering from a diabetic attack.
Cited 16 timesPublished951 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1997
Defendants raise a general claim of qualified immunity, but immunity is clearly inapplicable. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
Cited 2 timesPublished566 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 26, 1983
Nevertheless, prison officers and officials in state departments of corrections are entitled to qualified good faith immunity when damages are sought against them under § 1983. Procunier v. … We need not address the issue of whether Scillia and Thomas are entitled to qualified immunity, however, for we hold that none of Trotter’s constitutional rights were violated by the procedure afforded to him and of which
Cited 9 timesPublished133 F.R.D. 515 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 1990
First, whether I have found a particular document to be subject to the qualified work product immunity provided by Rule 26 depends on whether the subject matter of the document concerns preparation or strategy, or the appraisal … Rule 26(b) provides qualified immunity only for “tangible" things.
Cited 35 timesPublished157 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 2016
Qualified Immunity The Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is truncated and essentially merely describes the general law concerning the availability of the defense. See de la Rama v. Ill. … When allegations revolve around whether police officers failed to disclose Brady evidence, the qualified immunity question focuses on whether it was clearly established that the information that Gray-son contends the Defendants
Cited 17 timesPublishedStanley Works v. Haeger Potteries, Inc.
35 F.R.D. 551 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 16, 1964
Where attorneys for parties having a mutual interest in litigation exchange their work product, it remains protected by a qualified privilege. Transmirra v. Monsanto, supra. … Communications betwen Costas and associate counsel retained by him are clearly immune from discovery.
Cited 28 timesPublishedColtec Industries, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance
197 F.R.D. 368 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2000
That is to say, the mere fact that a discovery opponent anticipates litigation does not qualify an “in-house” document as work product. … It may be overstating the obvious, but in this court’s experience it is necessary; describing a document as “legal advice” or “work product” is not the same as establishing that the documents are immune from discovery.
Cited 28 timesPublishedWallace Ex Rel. Wallace v. Batavia School District 101
870 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 1994
In the alternative, the § 1983 claim against Cliffe would have to be dismissed because Cliffe is entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a public official performing discretionary functions is protected against suit from damages unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional
Cited 0 timesPublished537 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1982
There are two types of immunity which the courts have applied to section 1983 claims: absolute (judicial and quasi-judicial) and qualified immunity. … The other type of immunity granted by the courts in a section 1983 claim is qualified immunity.
Cited 1 timesPublished193 F. Supp. 3d 900 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 2016
The final argument, .concerning qualified immunity, also fails. … Should we affirm summary judgment because the defendants receive qualified immunity? The district.court said yes, we say no.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2025
Qualified immunity exists to protect public officials from suit unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Doxtator v. O’Brien, 39 F.4th 852, 863 (7th Cir. 2022). … Armbrust’s obligation to intervene was not clearly established in 1998, and as such she is entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. See Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVickery Manor Service Corp. v. Village of Mundelein
575 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1983
City of Boulder established an important guide for future eases: a general grant of power to a local governmental unit does not necessarily immunize subsequent anticompetitive conduct pursuant to that grant. … The city, contending that its denial of services to the towns was authorized by clearly articulated state policy, argued that state action immunity protected its conduct.
Cited 1 timesPublishedStone v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University
38 F. Supp. 3d 935 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2014
However, as in Rickman, demotion and promotion decisions are clearly within the scope of Stone’s supervisors’ employment, 4 and thus sovereign immunity blocks the claims in Counts V and VIII based on the Whistleblower Act … Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 224 (7th Cir.1993) (“In effect [plaintiff] is arguing that a state cannot waive its sovereign immunity in part; if the state doesn’t want to be sued in federal court, it can’t establish a court of claims
Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026
The Court therefore addresses only the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “Plaintiff did not have a clearly established right . . . to make bail payment to the county clerk,” even if the Sheriff’s Office had accepted improper
Cited 0 timesUnknownLimes-Miller v. City of Chicago
773 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 1991
Qualified Immunity As with her other claims, Limes-Miller’s Count II claim against Rogers must fail for a second and independent reason — this time because Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Whether an official violated clearly established constitutional protections is a question of law (id.).
Cited 16 timesPublished123 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 2015
Their absolute immunity argument is really 'just an argument on the merits, id. at 7-9, and it is questionable whether private dentists are even entitled to assert qualified immunity under § 1983. See Currie v. … This disposition makes it unnecessary to reach her other contentions, including that she has absolute and qualified immunity. II.
Cited 14 timesPublishedMoore v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
300 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 21, 2004
(“Tort Immunity Act”). … the Tort Immunity Act.”
Cited 6 timesPublished64 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 29, 1946
Quite as clearly, though by necessary implication instead of by express provision, is the right of the citizen to be equally represented in Congress. United States v. Classic, supra. … Likewise, it can, with immunity, defy the Illinois state courts.”
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna