Case law

MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

462 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 6, 1978

These decisions clearly have established that AT&T is duty bound to honor reasonable requests for the interconnection of AT&T facilities with specialized carrier facilities.” … Clearly, these allegations state a claim of antitrust violation falling within the sham exception to the Noerr immunity. Otter Tail Power Co. v.

United States v. All Funds on Deposit with O'Brien & Associates

892 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2012

Claimants’ injury is also clearly caused by the government’s forfeiture action and can be redressed by a favorable determination in the current case. Thus claimants satisfy the other requirements for standing. … The government contends that claimants still lack prudential standing because they cannot qualify as innocent owners.

Ramirez v. Weinberger

363 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 1973

Clearly, a three-judge court is both appropriate and has the power to hear the claims against the state defendants because the amended complaint seeks to enjoin the operation of a state statute on the grounds of unconstitutionality … Without even reaching the substantial problems of plaintiffs’ standing to maintain a mandamus suit against the Secretary and of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, it is clear that plaintiffs’ remedy against the state officials

TEESDALE v. City of Chicago

792 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 26, 2011

Teesdale’s damages claim, though, may fail based on qualified immunity unless there is clearly established law that Teesdale’s past activity does not violate the pertinent statutory prohibitions. … not clearly established.

United States v. Swift

186 F. 1002 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 1911

The parties to it adopt certain machinery and agree to certain methods for the purpose of establishing and maintaining in the future reasonable rates for transportation. … Clearly, it does not. Certainly it cannot be claimed that the pardon granted in 1861 to Gen.

Kopulos v. Pisaneschi

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2025

“When a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right. Leiser v. Kloth, 933 F.3d 696, 701 (7th Cir. 2019). … Kopulos’ response to Pisaneschi’s qualified immunity argument falls well short of demonstrating that Pisaneschi violated Kopulos’ clearly established rights.

James

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2026

A plaintiff may defeat qualified immunity by showing that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Recall that a plaintiff may satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis” by (1) pointing to an analogous case establishing the right to be free from the conduct at issue; or (2) showing that

Nichols v. Laymon

506 F. Supp. 267 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 5, 1980

Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. Alternatively, they assert that they cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendants enjoy a qualified immunity. Procunier v. … These contentions invoke consideration of the second prong of the qualified immunity test. The arguments of the County on the issues of knowledge and intent solely relate to Neely.

Robbins Resource Recovery Partners, L.P. v. Edgar

947 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1996

The Partnership’s Waste Facility does not qualify as a QSWEF under the amended definition because its facility does not use methane gas. … In this case, the State of Illinois and its agency, the Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”) assert their constitutional immunity to bar this suit, and Congress has not abrogated immunity as to any of the federal claims made

Webb v. The City of Batavia

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 2023

Because I find that there was no violation of a constitutional right, Officers Miller and Sulaver are also entitled to qualified immunity. See Taylor v. … defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at [that] time.

Krocka v. Bransfield

969 F. Supp. 1073 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 24, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Bransfield insists that the right could not have been clearly established and that he is therefore entitled to immunity.

Illinois Ex Rel. Bakalis v. Weinberger

368 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 1973

Ill — SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The government asserts that the present suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because the judgment sought by the plaintiffs would expend itself on the public treasury by requiring defendants … Section 443 clearly distinguishes between the allotment process, which is a mandatory duty of the Commissioner, and payments to a state, which can occur only upon the Commissioners’ approval of a qualifying state plan.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

961 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 31, 1996

recently discovered exculpatory evidence since there was not clearly established authority imposing such a duty); Stanley Z. … This court holds that the Deputies did not violate any such rights, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. In California v.

Patterson v. Burge

328 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2004

See Manning, 355 F.3d at 1033 (where plaintiff established elements of Brady violation based on officers’ conduct beyond scope of testimony at trial, officers not entitled to absolute immunity). 4, Prosecutorial immunity … “If a [prosecutor’s] function was quasi-judicial, the [prosecutor] enjoys absolute immunity. If the function was administrative or investigatory, the [prosecutor] enjoys only qualified immunity.” Henderson v.

Weiler v. Village of Oak Lawn

86 F. Supp. 3d 874 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2015

Because the Court has ruled that Deetjen is entitled to absolute immunity, the Court need not address his alternative argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 *884 B. … Deetjen and the Village have not established that they are entitled to dismissal of the state law claims on immunity grounds.

Nielsen v. Village of Lake in the Hills

948 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 18, 1996

That is, instead of examining the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, this Court has first looked at whether a Section 1983 charge was sufficiently established to require resort to such a defense. … Speaking in terms of qualified immunity neither clarifies nor simplifies the analysis.

Walker v. Gibson

604 F. Supp. 916 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 1985

Walker did take advantage of grievance procedures established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 1302 , 3302, 7301 and codified at 5 C.F.R. Part 771. … It should be noted additionally that in this case, involving activity that likely violated federal rules and regulations, Walker may defeat Gibson’s shield of qualified immunity and recover damages in a tort action.

Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. Washington

736 F. Supp. 923 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 7, 1990

Qualified Immunity Finally, regardless of this court’s ruling on equal protection liability, Louis T. Galante and Jesse Hoskins are entitled to qualified immunity from suit in this case. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity public officials “performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

McCrimmon v. Kane County

606 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1985

At the very least they claim to have acted in good faith and to be entitled to a qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. … If so, they may be entitled to no more than qualified immunity under both Imbler and Hampton .

GUZELL v. Hiller

74 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 1999

Defendants have moved to dismiss Gu-zell’s complaint contending that (1) defendants had the requisite probable cause to arrest him and (2) defendants, as police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Guzell does not specifically address defendants’ qualified immunity argument, but instead asserts that the only issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to arrest Guzell.