Case law

Adams v. Wilmington

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

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” D.C. v. … But a case does not need to directly be on point for a right to be clearly established. Phillips, 678 F.3d at 528.

Stein v. Forest Preserve District

829 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 1993

A single act of employee misconduct, regardless of how highly placed, which clearly contravenes established state policy and procedures as contained within formal rules, regulations, and statutes, does not evidence the state … In other words, Stein alleges that Nevius’ actions violated clearly established rules and procedures for terminating civil service employees set forth in the Act.

In re Womack

333 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1971

The immunity order in issue was therefore as broad as the rights of these witnesses against self-incrimination, and the order clearly meets the standards of Counselman v. … It is beyond question that a grand jury need not establish probable cause merely to subpoena and question witnesses. In re Dionisio, supra, at 281.

A, B, C, D, E, F v. Jiang Zemin

282 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 12, 2003

Even if the brief were not clearly marked as a suggestion of immunity, which it is, its content makes amply clear that the Executive Branch, via the State Department, has recognized Jiang’s head-of-state immunity and urges … First, the justifications for inviolability and immunity — that a foreign diplomat should not be hindered in his official functions and that a foreign nation should not suffer an affront to its dignity— are clearly implicated

Cox v. Calumet Public Schools District 132

180 F. Supp. 3d 556 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 18, 2016

Second, Cox clearly alleges that the breach of contract occurred when the School District fired him without cause, in violation of the provision stating that firing must be for cause. See Dkt. … Cox appropriately concedes in his Response that the School District is immune from defamation liability under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/2-107.

Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 15, 2026

The defense of “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” … Because the rights at issue here were clearly established, the Court declines to dismiss based upon Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. IV.

Long Grove Country Club Estates, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove

693 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 1988

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants assert that they are qualifiedly immune from damages liability arising from their actions. … Therefore, to the extent that these individual defendants are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 4. Sovereign Immunity This court also holds that Ms.

United States Ex Rel. Womack v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR NORTHERN DIST. OF ILL.

348 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 1972

Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 , 74 S.Ct. 693 , 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954), definitively establishes this proposition in any event. … PUNISHMENT Relators next contend that as they have already been confined for more than fourteen months, further confinement is not coercive but clearly punitive.

Martinkovic Ex Rel. Martinkovic v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

669 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1987

Illinois, even while requiring immunization against communicable diseases, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, It 27-8.1, ch. … This dispute in turn calls into question whether the package insert clearly conveyed the dangers of the vaccination or alerted Bangash to those risks.

Max M. v. Thompson

592 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 1984

In Illinois, however, the immunity conferred on public officials generally is not absolute, but qualified. Id., at 191 , citing People ex rel. Munson v. Bartels, 138 Ill. 322 , 27 N.E. 1091 (1891). … To displace this qualified immunity, a claimant must show that the defendant official was negligent in the performance of ministerial duties or exhibited malicious and corrupt conduct in the performance of discretionary duties

Ross v. United States

697 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 29, 1988

immunity. … Officials sued in their individual capacities can avoid liability for their unconstitutional acts under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Max M. v. Illinois State Board of Education

684 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1988

Clearly, the framework developed in Max M. … The Ms’ argument that local defendants failed to employ qualified special education teachers was also rejected by this court.

Federal Housing Financing Agency v. City of Chicago

962 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 23, 2013

FHFA responds that this action is ripe because the Ordinance clearly applies to FHFA as a “mortgagee.” 5 R. 36 at 22. … The Ordinance clearly requires FHFA to register and monitor all of the vacant residential buildings for which it is “mortgagee.”

Hitzke v. Village of Mundelein

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because: (a) it was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injury … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”

McKay

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2025

“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 person … “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Hanson v.

United States Labor Party v. Rochford

416 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 31, 1975

Furthermore, he is entitled to qualified immunity which has not been overcome by any pleading or affidavit. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … This is clearly the overly broad type of regulation which was held to be unconstitutional in Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 , 68 S.Ct. 1148 , 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948).

United States v. Professional Sales Corp. (In Re Professional Sales Corp.)

56 B.R. 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 1985

Generally, a district court must accept a bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Neis, 723 F.2d 584, 588 (7th Cir.1983). … No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333, this “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies only to "core” proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2).

Anderson v. American General Life Insurance

19 F. Supp. 3d 785 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 4, 2013

American General’s Immunity Chapter 215 ILCS 5/1022 is the immunity provision of the IIPP and states: § 1022. Immunity. … American General’s conduct alleged in Anderson’s complaint is within the iramework of the IIPP’s immunity provision, 215 ILCS 5/1022, and accords American General immunity in this case.

State of Illinois Ex Rel. Scott v. Butterfield

396 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 16, 1975

Clearly, though, this is incorrect. … The qualifying language in the second sentence of Guideline 11 is not intended to eliminate the possibility of a [§ 4332(2) (C)] statement.

Estate of Gomes v. County of Lake

178 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2016

The Lake County defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of