Case law

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

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.

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.

Walker v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL

491 F. Supp. 2d 781 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2007

Immunity under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act SWIFT first argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 , et seq, immunizes it from liability for its actions in * … Because the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, and the relevant Article, do not themselves establish SWIFT’s IEEPA immunity, the court denies SWIFT’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on these asserted grounds

Michno v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 2018

The question a court must answer when a qualified immunity defense is raised is whether the defendant's conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred."

Copeland v. Johnson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2020

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

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

Pindak v. Dart

125 F. Supp. 3d 720 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2015

Sheriffs Defendants urge that, even if they can establish a violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ rights are not clearly established. … Because Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to panhandle is clearly established, Sheriffs Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lewis v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District

898 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 1995

The legislation establishing commuter transportation districts describes them as municipal corporations, Ind.Code § 8-5-15-2, and the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) defines them as political subdivisions. … Clearly, the District’s board is not as closely controlled by the state as Purdue’s. Nonetheless, the state subjects it to substantial oversight in other ways.

Haven v. RZECZPOSPOLITA POLSKA (REPUB. OF POLAND)

68 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 1999

None of the authorities cited by either party suggests a waiver of immunity or a settlement of claims by the Treaty beyond the Treaty’s clearly stated scope. 6 In sum, the Treaty is simply not relevant to this action. … Carried beyond its intended scope, the implied consent exception to sovereign immunity could subvert the need to establish minimum contacts with a forum. 14 Any such extension would imper-missibly put foreign states in a

United States v. Andreas

39 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1998

Since the sales volume allocation was, in essence, an output restriction that is patently illegal under clearly established antitrust law—both civil and criminal—Andreas has no basis to claim that he was unaware his actions … Wilson concedes that the record clearly establishes that Mark Whitacre *1065 does not live by the first point of the boy scout law—to be trustworthy—but contends, citing no authority, that the credibility determination for

Thuet v. Chicago Public Schools

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2020

Defendants next contend that Jackson, Passman, and LeMone are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ right to pre-termination notice and a hearing was not clearly established at the time they were fired and … “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

Wilson v. City of Chicago

900 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 1995

Tort Immunity Act”), for any judgment or settlement he receives. … In the instant case, the Board clearly acted in a judicial capacity.

Moore v. Lauer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2024

Badford are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right that was violated. Dkt. 85 at 9–10. Ms. … Defendants oppose this claim on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that there is no clearly established right to hire an attorney and write letters regarding a potential civil lawsuit.

Cartolano v. Tyrrell

421 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 1976

As to the second requirement of the test, insofar as plaintiff’s complaint relates to the federal defendants, it is clearly between the same parties or those in privity with the parties involved in 74 C 3326. … Rather, as indicated by the Seventh Circuit’s most recent comment on § 1985, only those classes falling within a broad interpretation of “suspect classifications” qualify for protection under the Griffin interpretation of

Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 2026

of the conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted.” … Plaintiff contends that the rulings in these cases are based on well-established Seventh Circuit precedent. The court finds that Officer Bacon is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Dyson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2026

Qualified immunity protects public officials and employees “from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Even if a question of fact exists as to whether the restrictions imposed on Plaintiff constituted “punishment,” Defendants nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that notice

United States v. Andreas

23 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 9, 1998

The indictment clearly accuses the defendants of agreeing to the worldwide lysine price-fixing. … Immunity decisions are completely within the government’s discretion. United States v.

Kole v. Village of Norridge

941 F. Supp. 2d 933 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2013

Defendants also argue that they are immune from liability under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. … Defendants again argue that Pendant Count VIII(l) fails to state a claim and that they are immune from liability under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.

Lerma v. City of DeKalb

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

As explained in more detail below, the court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s federal claims because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendants’ conduct violated clearly … Neither case clearly establishes that Bollow’s use of force was objectively unreasonable.