Case law

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.”

Harris v. Illinois

753 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 2010

The Immunity Act clearly provides that the State does not waive its immunity except as provided in certain other acts. The IHRA is not mentioned as an exception to the Immunity Act. See Cook v. Ill. … so as to override the Immunity Act); cf. 5 Ill.

Beiles v. City of Chicago

987 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2013

Defendants argue in the alternative that Traynor is entitled to qualified immunity from Beiles's false arrest claim. (R. 20, Defs.’ Mot. J. at 5.) … Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I, the Court need not determine if qualified immunity is appropriate.

Scoma v. Chicago Board of Education

391 F. Supp. 452 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1974

immunity under § 1983 for acts done in good faith, under Pierson v. … In that case, however, the Supreme Court conferred an immunity only from liability for damages; there was no indication whatsoever that such employees would be immune from equitable relief.

Rosiles v. Village of Round Lake Beach

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2024

As for prone pressure, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the force employed was reasonable, but that even if it was not, their actions were not clearly unlawful. … 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

Moore v. Floro

614 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 1985

Since neither of these acts is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Floro is clearly not entitled to the absolute prosecutorial immunity that he demands. Imbler v. … Furthermore, even if there were such a duty, Floro would be shielded from liability by qualified immunity because his alleged misconduct was nothing more than a discretionary act which did not violate clearly established

Suggs

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 2026

Finally, Koeppen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity Standard For Excessive Force Claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Chapman v. Burton Berger & Associates, Ltd.

159 B.R. 812 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 1993

Judge Smith is of course cloaked with absolute immunity for his judicial actions, a principle established well over a century ago in Bradley v. … to reflect that the "merits" of the case really do not matter once judicial immunity is established. 4 .

Alonso v. Weiss

98 F. Supp. 3d 956 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2015

Count III In count III, plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached her fiduciary duties in failing to hire a qualified investment advisor. … Although it is difficult to imagine that these circumstances could ever be demonstrated to be a breach of fiduciary duty, Weiss has not established that she is entitled to qualified judicial immunity on Count IX. 5.

Murry Ex Rel. the Estate of Hill v. Sheahan

991 F. Supp. 1052 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 1998

Act (“Tort Immunity Act”), 745 ILCS 10/8-101. … Although Plaintiffs clearly argued the Cleaver case to the presiding judge and the Cleaver case clearly supported the presiding judge’s ultimate ruling, the presiding judge did not explicitly rely on Cleaver in ruling on

United States v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Building Corp.

843 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 2, 1994

The Government’s position that probable cause was established was clearly set forth in its memorandum in support of its motion, yet nowhere in Penny’s response did she raise any challenge to probable cause. … These activities clearly fit within the “facilitation” definition and the affidavit — uncontroverted by Penny even at this late date, four years after this case was filed — establishes that there exists “a probability or

Broadnax v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc.

169 F.R.D. 628 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1996

The moving party has the burden of establishing that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Black and Decker Corp. v. Vermont American Corp., 915 F.Supp. 933, 937 (N.D.Ill.1995). … Defendant has not established that the Middle District of North Carolina would be “clearly more convenient” for witnesses than this district. 3.

Delgado v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 17, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … As the Seventh Circuit has explained: [A] right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if its contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable

Reilly

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2026

“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.” Kisela v. … To determine whether qualified immunity “shields” a government official, courts analyze two elements: (1) whether the official ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right”; and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. United States Department of the Navy

722 F. Supp. 1565 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 1989

In the Court’s view, the Control Act obligated the government to compensate people who suffered injury that arose when a government employee violated duties established by law, even state law, but the government remained … Congress clearly planned to coerce polluters by providing that injunctions and sanctions were among the federal and state enforcement mechanisms to which all polluters, including federal facilities, must submit.

Leith v. Lufthansa German Airlines

793 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 22, 1992

Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that even if we find that LGA qualifies as a foreign state, Kieca, as a low-level employee, does not also qualify. … Once jurisdiction over the main claim is established, the statute mandates that the “district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original

Stephens v. Collins

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2025

grant of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hernandez v.

United States v. All Funds on Deposit With R.J. O'brien & Associates

982 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2013

They do not establish substantive or evidentiary requirements. … Prudential standing The government continues to argue that the claimants in this case lack prudential standing to proceed with their claims because “they cannot establish that they qualify as ‘owners’ of the defendant funds

Jones

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2026

Plaintiff responds that it was clearly established that excessive force violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and qualified immunity does not apply. [13] at 6-7. … of violation of clearly established law.”)