Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,132 results
0.86s
In Re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994
909 F. Supp. 1083 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 17, 1995
Second, the legislative *1104 history underlying section 1441(d) seems clearly to confirm such an intent ... 36 F.3d at 1282 n. 17. … The instrumentality is typically established as a separate juridical entity, with the powers to hold and sell property and to sue and be sued.
Cited 14 timesPublishedChapman v. United States Marshal
584 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 3, 2008
immunity, and the statute of limitations. … immunity, and the statute of limitations. 5 (R. 44, Mot. to Dismiss.)
Cited 1 timesPublished123 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 7, 2000
The Illinois Tort Immunity Act provides that a public entity cannot be liable for “failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service, or, if police protection is provided, for failure … In 745 ILCS 10/4— 105, the Illinois legislature established immunity for merely negligent failure to provide medical care for prisoners in custody, but § 4-105 does not apply to willful and wanton failure to provide or summon
Cited 6 timesPublishedIntercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network
969 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2013
The Act grants two forms of immunity: absolute immunity pursuant to RCW 4.24.510 (“Section 510”) and conditional immunity pursuant to RCW 4.24.525 (“Section 525”). … Both entities qualify as agencies of either state or federal government.
Cited 47 timesPublishedDistrict 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 person … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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 person … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownEstate of Warner v. United States
743 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 3, 1990
This District Court has established a task force to assist in the disposition of more-than-three-year-old cases on the calendars of any of the judges in this District. … If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2024
To reiterate, 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 … al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741–42 (2011) (a district court’s “footnoted dictum” did not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 28, 2022
Qualified immunity Defendants argue they are not liable based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The district court also concluded that defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity as to the clearly established requirement without discussing an analogous case identifying the right.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJain v. Butler Illinois School District 53
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2019
qualified- immunity ground is dispositive, so the Court need not reach the merits.5 In general, qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 2022
“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.” … Also, the disputes of material facts in this case preclude qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could find that Agent Billiot violated a clearly established right.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 24, 2022
Moreover, in order to obtain the protection of qualified immunity, an official must not violate a clearly established right. … established, qualified immunity does not apply.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown847 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1993
Defendants also advance a qualified immunity defense. … Defendants assert that they acted properly at all times and did not violate any clearly established right. Gerstein itself, however, defeats defendants’ claim to a qualified immunity defense.
Cited 6 timesPublished864 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 1994
As to Rooding’s request for money damages, Peters contends he is protected by qualified immunity. … Therefore, qualified immunity does not protect Peters from Rooding’s claim for money damages. However, Rooding’s claim for money damages cannot include prisoners.
Cited 5 timesPublished460 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 1978
Had the drug been administered by means of a hypodermic needle, the element of physical contact would clearly be sufficient. … Charitable Immunity The University of Chicago claims it is immune under the doctrine of charitable immunity from any actionable claims stated by plaintiffs.
Cited 56 timesPublishedBodimetric Health Services, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty
706 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 1989
Plaintiffs’ allegations Plaintiff BHS was the owner of a chain of home health agencies qualified to provide services under the Medicare program. … Plaintiffs must also rely on the denial of an entitlement under the Act to establish the injury required by standing doctrine.
Cited 5 timesPublished702 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 29, 1988
The qualified immunity defendant alleges is not a jurisdictional bar, but rather an affirmative defense. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The court need only find, as it does, that the issues of Illiois law raised are not clearly settled, and that if plaintiff prevails in the Circuit Court of Cook County on the questions of Illinois law, he may well receive
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 29, 2023
Dakuras is protected by qualified immunity unless he violated clearly established law. Taylor, 10 F.4th at 806. … Because Dakuras did not violate clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity on Bass’s excessive force claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 2025
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 would have … Renfro, 46 F.4th 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2022) (upholding denial of qualified immunity when material disputes of fact existed surrounding the violation of a clearly established right); Gonzalez v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown272 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2003
Although Plaintiff has alleged the requisite constitutional torts to establish municipal liability under § 1983, she has shown no liberty or property interest in her employment sufficient to establish a due process violation … Clearly then, the City’s act of discharging Ellis was a discretionary decision. Therefore, the City is immune from suit under the Tort Immunity Act.
Cited 7 timesPublished
Ask Donna