Case law

Miller v. Phelan

845 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1993

(iv) Immunity Defendants ask us to consider whether they are immune from suit under §§ 1981 and 1983. … As such, the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity, designed to protect officials from damages under certain circumstances, do not apply here.

In Re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation

465 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 1979

Únder 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001 , et seq., the power to grant immunity clearly lies exclusively with the Executive. Ryan v. C. I. R., supra, 568 F.2d at 540 . … The first of these factors, by itself, would clearly be insufficient to make a prospective determination of “taint.” In United States v.

In re Roe

720 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 14, 1989

Such a proposition is clearly inconsistent with Fisher and Doe . … Clearly, the affidavit of the FBI agent is insufficient to establish that the government has anything more than a generalized knowledge of the nature of the category of documents it seeks to obtain.

Richard J. Vinet v. David Chadek, et al.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 2026

immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established right.” Dockery v.

Lopez v. Fasana

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To overcome the individual Defendants’ qualified-immunity defense, Lopez must allege that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and (2) “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Campbell v. City of Chicago

577 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 22, 1983

It is clear from these decisions that the following elements must be established in order to achieve Parker immunity: the municipality must have acted pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy … Rejecting the defendants’ argument that they were immune under Parker , the court concluded, in part, that there was no clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition in the provision

United States v. Armour & Co.

142 F. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1906

I regard this as clearly distinguishing between the corporation and the individual who is an officer of the corporation. … If it shall be said that the act of February 14, 1903, establishing the Department of Commerce and Labor, allows immunity to the witness only upon the conditions urged by the government, viz., that he shall have resisted

Franco v. Thrush

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 4, 2024

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 would have … State officials are protected by qualified immunity “unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Arquero v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2025

Those facts are not material to the determination of whether qualified immunity applies because Defendants’ actions were reasonable and Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants violated any clearly established right. … Even Assuming Defendants Violated a Constitutional Right, that Right was not Clearly Established Turning to the second inquiry under the qualified immunity umbrella, Plaintiff

Zboralski v. Monahan

616 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2008

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, we ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id 4 The Fourth Amendment protects the right of persons not to be subjected to unreasonable searches or seizures.

Estate of Luis Vasquez, Jr. v. Barton

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2024

The Court turns next to the second consideration for qualified immunity: whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established on July 8, 2019. Purvis, 614 F.3d at 717. … Accordingly, the same material disputes of fact identified previously preclude applying qualified immunity based on the clearly-established prong.

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

33 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2014

Carlson, 826 F.2d 647, 650 (7th Cir.1987) (“[W]hen considering the qualified immunity issue on a motion for summary judgment, a district court should consider all of the undisputed evidence in the record, read in the light … The plain language indicates that Section 1610(g) is not a separate basis of attachment, but rather qualifies the previous subsections.

Wright

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Brown should be protected by qualified immunity. [57] at 7-10. … Defendants are correct that qualified immunity can be decided on a motion to dismiss and that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of court on qualified immunity grounds.” Sabo v.

Kaufman v. Board of Trustees, Community College District No. 508

552 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 8, 1982

The qualified immunity enunciated in Wood and Scheuer is phrased in the disjunctive, with both “objective” and “subjective” components. … Defendants acknowledge that the question of Shabat’s qualified immunity can be established on a motion for summary judgment, citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507-08 , 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978).

Hollingsworth v. Menella

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 19, 2024

of clearly established law.” … This is so, “[b]ecause qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

Terrell

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Banks is entitled to qualified immunity because Terrell does not adequately allege a constitutional violation or a clearly established … “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.”

Clark v. United States

447 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 1978

This argument overlooks the long established constitutional exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Corporation, 337 U.S. 682, 690 , 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1461 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). … Plaintiffs clearly have alleged a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy inasmuch as they seek to be included within a class receiving federal monetary benefits.

Luker v. Nelson

341 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 1972

The general rule of the doctrine of res judicata stated above must be qualified by the caveat that the judgment entered must be on the merits. … There exists, however, one well-established exception to the foregoing rule regarding private acts.

Sampson v. Federal Republic of Germany

975 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 10, 1997

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT Under the United States Constitution, the sole power to establish the inferior *1115 federal courts vests with the United States Congress. U .S. Const, art. Ill, § 1. … In 1980 they established the Hardship Fund. (Id. at 4.) Finally, in 1990 they established the Article 2 Fund.

Mutter v. Madigan

17 F. Supp. 3d 752 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 2014

its constitutional authority, may abrogate immunity in the drafting of a federal law; and (3) the doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), which “allows … Mutter has not established an implied contract with respect to the disciplinary process and has not established a violation of procedural due process rights.