Case law

Brown

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2026

right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Qualified Immunity Defendant Mockler argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful seizure claim because, even if probable cause was lacking, a reasonable

Medina v. City of Chicago

100 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 16, 2000

Individual public employees are entitled, where applicable, to the defense of qualified immunity, see generally Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), but municipalities are not. … Thus when a plaintiff loses his claim against a police officer based on qualified immunity, he can still recover against the municipality if he can prove a constitutional deprivation caused by a municipal policy or custom

Allen v. Chicago Transit Authority

198 F.R.D. 495 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 10, 2001

Work Product Doctrine As with the attorney-client privilege, the burden is on the discovery opponent to establish that the work product doctrine immunizes the documents at issue from discovery. U.S. v. … That is to say, the mere fact that a discovery opponent anticipates litigation does not qualify an “in-house” document as work product. Janicker, 94 F.R.D. at 650.

Young v. The City of Joliet

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violates a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To be “clearly established,” a right must be one that any reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the right.

United States v. Kolb

161 B.R. 30 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 1993

The government next argues that it has not waived its immunity to be sued for an award of attorney’s fees. … Moreover, with regard to the government’s claim that some of Kolb’s costs should not qualify as court costs under section 7430(c)(2), the court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of section 7430(c)(1), which

Swanigan v. Trotter

645 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 4, 2009

violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As previously set forth, qualified immunity operates to shield officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

State v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

911 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2012

It is the plaintiffs’ burden to allege facts that, taken as true, establish that the agency has taken final action. Id. Here, the facts they allege are sufficient only to establish the counter-proposition. … But the complaint, and the plaintiffs' briefs, clearly indicate that the plaintiffs are not satisfied merely with an accelerated GLMRIS timeline. Supp. Resp. (Dkt. 240).

Abrego v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Garcia v. … Courts can decide motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity when the issue turns on whether the law was clearly established at a particular point in time.

Keglovitz v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2025

Last, the defendants argue that this case should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. (R. 16 at 12.) … 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).

Medina

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

Qualified Immunity The Officer Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Count I. … at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”

Holder v. Ivanjack

39 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 1999

Holder, however, claims that DeRosa, Rodriquez, and the City are liable because DeRosa and Rodriquez’s conduct was willful and wanton and, thus, fits into an exception established by the Tort Immunity Act. … The legislature has clearly granted immunity in this case, thus, the "special duty doctrine” does not operate as an exception to the Tort Immunity Act. 7 .

Hicks v. Clark

107 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 4, 2015

type of argument of qualified immunity that sought to rest on a similar child abuse case that rejected legal responsibility on the part of a Wisconsin state agency (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. … immunity in the fact-bound antecedents to De-Shaney, between foster parents and the appallingly non-maternal “mother” Jemmison.

JMB Group Trust IV v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System

986 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 1997

Furthermore, it clearly acts as an agent of the Commonwealth since all of the board’s members are either Commonwealth officials acting ex officio, or appointees of the Governor. … Although this determination is sufficient to establish that no diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , the court, under an Eleventh Amendment inquiry, must ask whether two exceptions apply to a state’s claim of immunity

Nixon v. United States

916 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 2013

When the putative beneficiary sued the Government for breach of contract, the court held that because Congress did not clearly indicate in FEGLIA that it intended to waive sovereign immunity by creating actionable duties, … Frerichs acknowledged that FEGLIA created “legal duties” on the part of the Government but concluded that the duties were not “actionable” because FEGLIA did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. Id.

Mendoza-Barrera

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 2026

right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … to also establish that the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the officers’ alleged misconduct.

McKay v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2024

Nevertheless, at the pleading stage, dismissal based on a qualified immunity defense is appropriate when the allegations in the complaint fail to state a violation of clearly established law. See Hanson v. … The qualified immunity analysis, however, distinguishes between whether the officials violated a clearly established right and whether that right was clearly established in the first place. See Holderman v.

Youker v. Schoenenberger

763 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 23, 1991

Defendants bear the burden of establishing the legal insufficiency of the complaint. Yeksigian, 900 F.2d at 104 . … Tort Immunity Act Defendants also move to dismiss Count II based upon their purported immunity under II2-201 of the tort immunity act.

Foster v. O'Rourke

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and (2) “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established “in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.”

Cuevas v. City of Aurora

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if there were no probable cause, Brian is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity does not apply at this time. Gonzalez v.

Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB "Lady Elgin"

755 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 1991

Their actions speak clearly. They had no hope or idea they could locate the Central America, and even if they located it, they had no hope they could recover anything from it. … SCOPE OF THE JUDGMENT The Foundation further seeks an order establishing its ownership rights over the wreck as against the State.'