Case law

Kapernekas v. Village of Stone Park

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 9, 2019

“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 … Kapernekas’s failure to establish the first prong of the qualified immunity test is fatal to his Fourth Amendment claim, we further note that he has also not met his burden to show that he had a “clearly established” right

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.

Higgins v. Village of Lyons

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ federal claims in Counts I-IV. … “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

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.

Thillens, Inc. v. Fryzel

712 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 1989

Fryzel's first memorandum asserted a qualified immunity defense, apparently reading the Complaint as requesting damages as well as injunctive relief (that view may have been occasioned by the boilerplate inclusion, in each … Because qualified immunity applies only to cases involving money damages (see, e.g., Rodriguez v. Board of Education, 620 F.2d 362, 366 (2d Cir.1980)), Fryzel’s reply memorandum has abandoned that line of defense. 9 .

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).

Quinn v. Board of Education

234 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 2017

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Resolution of State defendants’ argument that the ISBE members are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment is facilitated by plaintiffs’ apparent acquiescence to the view that the IBSE members … Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 , 103 S.Ct. 1564 , 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), not Sailors , establish the correct analytical framework for their claims.

Pryor v. Corrigan

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2022

Police officers receive qualified immunity unless they (1) violated a federal statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the unlawfulness of the conduct was “clearly established” at the time. See Reichle v. … He has not come forward with any case law establishing that the officer violated clearly established case law when he took Pryor to the ground. Gupta does not fit the bill.

Adams v. Baidwirn

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as the law they are alleged to have violated was neither clearly … Qualified immunity “‘shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Paine v. Johnson

689 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that they are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … In sum, qualified immunity does not shield Defendants’ actions because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendants violated Eilman’s clearly established constitutional rights.

McKenna v. Beezy

130 F.R.D. 655 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 1989

immunity defense. … Plaintiffs clearly failed to exercise reasonable diligence in effecting service of process. Out of concern for Illinois’ policy, see, e.g., Muskat v.

Hamrick v. Lewis

539 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 1, 1982

In addition, defendants contend that the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances aside, they acted in good faith as a matter of law, and that they are thus clothed with qualified immunity for their actions. … Defendants have also not established that as a matter of law they are entitled to the qualified immunity afforded to those public officials who act in good faith. Procunier v.

Bodimetric 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.

Fullilove v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2025

And if there was even “arguable probable cause,” the Officers would be entitled to qualified immunity. Abbott v. … could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed.”

Green v. Boedigheimer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 17, 2024

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. … , Boedigheimer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Continental Fruit Co. v. Thomas J. Gatziolis & Co.

774 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 25, 1991

Quite clearly, it does. Congress enacted PACA in order to protect the public interest. … "Congress directed the Secretary to establish the maximum time by which the parties to a transaction can agree payment must be made and still qualify for coverage under the trust.

Gerrard v. Blackman

401 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 6, 1975

Harpel, 493 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1974) has dealt with the question of whether the unauthorized or non-eonsented to use of an extension phone to overhear the conversation of two parties qualifies as an exception to the definition … The statute clearly does not support the following ambiguous statement made by the Third Circuit in U. S. v.

Moore v. Shapiro

293 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 1968

On August 5, 1968 plaintiffs filed nominating petitions signed by 26,500 qualified voters. … This grant clearly gives this Court jurisdiction to hear the matter before it.

Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank

807 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 18, 2011

In the instant action, Plaintiffs have not pled facts that establish that their claims are untimely. … In addition, Plaintiffs have raised the argument that even if the takings excep *698 tion to sovereign immunity is not applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims, Magyar has implicitly waived immunity.

Rogers v. City Of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 2023

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established right at the time of the officers’ actions. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … The qualified immunity inquiry involves the determination of two factors: whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct