Case law

Giarrusso v. City of Chicago

539 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1982

The possibility remains that qualified immunity, premised on a finding that Rowe had acted in good faith, might still be granted Rowe. See e.g. Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231 (3rd Cir. 1977). … This Court believes, however, that a finding of good faith is one which must be made at trial rather than at this stage in the proceedings, and thus summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds must be denied at this time

T.E. Ex Rel. C.E. v. Sperlik

639 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2009

Qualified Immunity Most of the individual Defendants make an argument that qualified immunity protects them from liability, arguing that the information they received was so second-hand as that the alleged right they violated … could not have been clearly established.

Myvett v. Heerdt

232 F. Supp. 3d 1005 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2017

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court considers (1) whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a federal constitutional right, and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Almdale’s arguments center on the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, but as the Seventh Circuit has made clear, “[fjabricating evidence, including witness testimony, violates a clearly established constitutional

Caruth v. Illinois Department Of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 2020

judgment is warranted based on qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “qualified immunity shields an official from liability for civil damages, provided that the illegality of the official’s conducts was not clearly established at the time he acted.” Roe v.

Tambone v. Memorial Hosp. for McHenry County

635 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 1986

Such a result is clearly unwarranted and unwise. … Second, as the court in Marrese noted, the elements required to establish state action under Section 1983 differ from those required to meet the state action immunity doctrine. Marrese, 748 F.2d at 395 n. 25.

Lietzow v. Village of Huntley

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 2023

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” City of Escondido v. … Aug. 22, 2022) (reviewing Randolph and related caselaw, and concluding qualified immunity applied because it was not “clearly established” that an officer violated the plaintiff’s rights, where the plaintiff objected to

Westwood Promotions, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

718 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1989

known about the third class mail costs during the period it mailed material from Lombard, it would have, and could have, complied with the pre-sort requirements in order to qualify for the lower rate. … The court ruled that the Postal Service had “wide discretion” in granting refunds and that the U.S.P.S. decision was final because the decision was “not clearly wrong, nor contrary to law.” Id. at 1210.

Long v. Williams

155 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2001

We note that, in their motion to dismiss, although Defendants did not raise the defense of qualified immunity, they would have been entitled to that defense. … "[Q]ualified immunity protects arresting police officers from suit if a reasonable officer would have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly *943 established law and the information that the arresting officers

Atwater v. Roudebush

452 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1976

Their duty to attempt the collection of Atwater’s debt to the FHA was clearly mandated by statute. … As a lower echelon federal employee, Piner has a qualified immunity and has available the defense of good faith in the performance of his official duties.

Toro v. Gainer

370 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2005

Defendants also raise the shield of qualified immunity and further argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is denied. … In their final argument, defendants claim that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

United States v. Thanasouras

368 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 7, 1973

First, the defendant mistakenly contends that the Special February 1971 Grand Jury which heard the defendant’s immunized testimony also indicted the defendant. This is clearly not the case. … Thus the Alter ease relied on by the defendant to support his request is clearly distinguishable from the instant action.

Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

558 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1983

The court need not, however, decide the FSIA issue 3 as it finds that the act of state doctrine clearly requires dismissal. … THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE The act of state doctrine was established in the 1897 case of Underhill v.

Harris v. United States Department of the Treasury

489 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 1980

Plaintiff contends that he was better qualified for the position than was the agent selected for the post, and that his application was denied solely on account of his age. *477 In March, 1975, plaintiff initiated administrative … Clearly, the tradition of a trial before a jury of one’s peers holds a special place in our system of jurisprudence.

Tavarez v. O'MALLEY

635 F. Supp. 1274 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 22, 1986

Here, the actions of O’Malley and Mole as alleged by the Tavarezes clearly were not authorized by the relevant ordinance. … However, this provision clearly does not protect people such as O’Malley who are not in a position to determine policy.

Gardels v. Murphy

377 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1974

We believe that Henkel is entitled to immunity. … We do not have before us the question of Murphy’s actions as an advanceman on a clearly partisan campaign trip.

Edmondson v. Simon

87 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 1980

From this they argue that, absent an explicit waiver of governmental immunity (not present in the ADEA), federal employees have no right to jury trial. … Though the issue is thus clearly a close one, it seems to the Court that the government and Judge Tamm’s dissenting opinion in Nakshian have the better of the argument.

Lang v. City of Round Lake Park

87 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 2000

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 … Based on the undisputed evidence, Gliniewicz and Hoyne had probable cause to arrest the Langs or are at least entitled to qualified immunity in connection with the arrest.

Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda

622 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1985

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), so held with regard to the qualified immunity of municipal officers for their executive acts, and we cannot see why there should be a different … result here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

Rodriguez v. United States

629 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 19, 1986

He would, however, have qualified "good faith” immunity: immune unless his conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In an ordinary situation, of course, a taxpayer’s statutory right to § 6212 and § 6303 notice would be about as clearly established as a right can be.

Mosley v. Klincar

711 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 1989

To determine whether a particular task qualifies as a quasi-judicial function entitled to absolute immunity, a court must analyze three factors: (1) the historical basis for the immunity in question; (2) the risk that the … First of all, the historical rationale underlying absolute immunity supports the prosecutors’ claim of immunity from Mosley’s lawsuit.