Case law

Houk v. Village of Oak Lawn

647 F. Supp. 710 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1986

In April 1981 both Murdoch and Houk took an examination (the “1981 Exam”) to qualify for promotion to sergeants’ positions {id. II2). … P.Mem. 14 n. has now withdrawn the clearly unsustainable Section 1981 claim. 3 .

Townsend v. Vallas

99 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 2000

It still must be considered, though, whether Vallas and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability for monetary damages as long as “their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Chavez Garcia v. DEA

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 25, 2020

Chavez argues Arona violated his clearly established constitutional right against excessive use of force to effectuate an arrest, and therefore Arona is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The right was clearly established “Public officials are entitled to immunity unless, by the time of the contested acts, it was clearly established that those acts violated the Constitution

Mercatus Group LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital

528 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 15, 2007

“[T]o be immune from the antitrust laws[,] municipalities must be acting pursuant to a ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed’ state policy to displace competition.” … The Trustee Defendants contend that the acts at issue were legislative in nature, and thus, they are entitled to legislative immunity. It is their burden to establish that they are entitled to absolute immunity.

LaFlamboy v. Landek

587 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 20, 2008

Nor has Cainkar established an entitlement to qualified immunity as to Count II. … “Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials performing discretionary functions that affords them protection from civil liability.” Lee v.

Komutanon v. Coler

702 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

Bouto v. Guevara

District 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).

Eldridge v. Challenging Law Enforcement Official, The

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2018

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that her allegedly violated constitutional right was “clearly established” in a “particularized sense.” Lewis v. … Because the Seventh Circuit found the defendant not liable on the merits, it declined to decide whether it was clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that the ISP “as a whole took too long.” Id.

Bass v. Sgt. A. Dakuras

District 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.

Hwang v. Board of Education for Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200

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

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Count I. (Dkt. 16 at 9-11.) … Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Ploski v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 2019

Because there is no clearly established law supporting the federal theory of liability, Medenica is entitled to qualified immunity on Count I. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Smith v. Portwood

District 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.

Yarem v. Duda

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 22, 2024

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claims when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 697 (7th Cir. 2023). … Defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, so it is incumbent on Yarem to point to a clearly established right that Duda violated. See Fosnight v. Jones, 41 F.4th 916, 924 (7th Cir. 2022).

Parks Ex Rel. Parks v. Pavkovic

557 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 1983

The Court recognized that the cases which established a fourteenth amendment right to education on behalf of handicapped children and “the principles that they established are the principles which, to a significant extent … ISBE clearly qualifies as the state educational agency. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (7) (1976). 13 . The comment is instructive.

Morales v. United States

26 F. Supp. 3d 716 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 2013

The Court finds that neither of Petitioner’s proposed arguments are “both obvious and clearly stronger” than the issues his counsel raised on appeal. See id.; Lee, 328 F.3d at 900-01 . … Because Petitioner has failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective, no good cause exists for his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal.

McCullough v. Fraternal Order of Police

304 F.R.D. 232 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 4, 2014

Therefore, no email after that date is immune from discovery. *239 2. … Unless the party asserting the “common interest” establishes that the withheld communications or documents were otherwise privileged, the “common interest” doctrine does not come into play.

Ellis v. City of Chicago

272 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.

Rooding v. Peters

864 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.

Kohl v. Murphy

767 F. Supp. 895 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 1991

Therefore, it is not appropriate to extend the per se rule which Dodson established for public defenders, to GALs. … The court finds that defendant’s alleged actions clearly do not fall within the “autonomy” category.

Victims of Hungarian Holocaust v. Hungarian State Railways

798 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2011

DISCUSSION HSR argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because it is immune to liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). … Immunity Under FSIA HSR argues that it is an instrumentality of a foreign state and is immune to liability under FSIA, which generally makes a foreign state (or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state) “immune from