Case law

Hernandez v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2024

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 … However, resolution at this stage is appropriate when qualified immunity turns on the second prong—whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated—because it is purely

Walker v. City of Aurora

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 25, 2025

An officer enjoys qualified immunity unless a plaintiff shows that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Sabo v. … Walker cannot overcome qualified immunity because he did not demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. B.

United States v. American Natural Gas Company

206 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1962

The effect of this decision, however, is not so clearly dispositive of the instant motion as is the decision in Wise conclusive of the first motion. … However, it cannot be said at this juncture of the case that the government will be unable to adduce proof to substantiate the charges of the indictment or that the defendants will be able to establish that all of the acts

Mortensen

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

Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … Plaintiff argues that Arrowood is not entitled to qualified immunity because commanding a dog to attack a suspect who is already complying with orders is a violation of clearly established law.

Czosnyka v. Gardiner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

“[A]bsent controlling authority,” “a robust ‘consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ ” can clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs’ first argument in opposition to the application of qualified immunity is that the prohibition of viewpoint discrimination and application of the First Amendment to social media are clearly established.

JEREMY R. STARKS v. THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County; SUPERINTENDENT M. COBBLE; LT. R. CHAVEZ; and OFFICER S. HARRIS

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 2025

clearly established constitutional right. … “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.” White v.

Carlisle v. Lopresti

47 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1999

Having reached this conclusion, however, we must still consider whether Walsh and Lopresti are entitled to qualified immunity- C. Are Walsh and Lopresti entitled to qualified immunity? … Daley, 92 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir.1996) (finding that the qualified immunity inquiry “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, not the state of mind or good faith of the officials”)).

Almaraz v. HALEAS

585 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2008

Also, this does not appear to be a case that will involve the type of legal issues that could result in a qualified immunity defense. … That is not the type of conduct for which qualified immunity would apply.

Allen v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 18, 2025

to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler

765 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1991

Even in Noerr, where immunity was granted, there was an agreement between commercial competitors in the long-distance freight hauling business. … In fact, the Second Circuit’s opinion in Ivic , relied on by the Eighth Circuit in Flynn , clearly states that a RICO enterprise "is evidently an organized profit-seeking venture.” Ivic, 700 F.2d at 60 .

Howard v. Village of Buffalo Grove, IL, The

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2025

Government officials like the Officers are protected by qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Roberts v. Broski

979 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 1997

immunity in his individual capacity. … The court finds no reason to discuss Broski's qualified immunity or mitigation arguments.

United States v. Quintanilla

760 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 1991

Quintanilla’s alleged corrupt conduct clearly satisfies the relationship and continuity test articulated in H.J. … Although Mendeloff never promised Gutierrez that she would be immune from prosecution, he also did not clearly inform her that she would be prosecuted and that the information she provided could be used against her.

Evoy v. Illinois State Police

429 F. Supp. 2d 989 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2006

The Court established a two-part test to determine whether a statute may be applied retrospectively. … The court therefore determined that the plaintiff could not use his demotion to establish an ongoing violation of his procedural due process rights. Id.

Bergquist v. United States National Weather Service

849 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 1994

The Fifth Circuit has similarly concluded that the NWS’ actions are immune from common-law tort liability for an alleged failure to accurately predict the weather, since the NWS functions are “clearly discretionary” in nature … This rule, which was established in part by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”), covers federal as well as state and local agencies. Estate of Warner v.

Draghi v. County of Cook

985 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1997

But as the Facts section has reflected, Draghi is clearly wrong in all events in attempting to advance two of his Section 1983 claims, those under AC Counts I and IV. … To turn to Draghi’s state law claims, defendants challenge two of those three— SAC Counts VI and VIII, each of which sounds in tort—as barred by the one-year limitations period established by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act

Conyers v. City of Chicago

162 F. Supp. 3d 737 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 10, 2016

City of Evanston, No. 14 C 8347, 2016 WL 344533 , at *3 (Black’s language “tracks the immunity established by § 10/2-201, not § 10/4-103”). … distinction between these immunity provisions.

Staelens v. Yake

432 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 1977

The *837 immunity of judges for acts within their judicial discretion is well established; this rule was not abolished by the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Pierson v. … “[I]t has been frequently stated that allegations of conspiracy between private persons and public officials who are themselves immune from liability under the facts alleged are insufficient to establish liability of the

Clifton ELY-EL N-18287 v. Godinez

8 F. Supp. 2d 776 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1998

It does however support the alternatively dispositive claims of qualified immunity advanced by all defendants: Even if the short step from the Thomas facts to Ely-El’s precise situation were somehow viewed as calling for … established” at the time that defendants acted (see Anderson v.

Barnes

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity. … The controversial (although well-established) doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory