Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,132 results
0.40s
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2025
is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’” … immunity,” as the “question is not whether rules of individual liability for the conduct were clearly established at the time” but rather “whether the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2025
Alternatively, Morrison argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Still, Morrison raises a qualified immunity defense, which “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
Cited 0 timesUnknown168 F. Supp. 3d 1060 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 2016
To prevail under either theory, Clemons must establish that he (1) is a qualified individual with a disability, 4 that (2) he was denied ’the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise … But even if a facility constructed after 1992 fails to comply with those structural requirements, its shortcomings do not violate the ADA if the facility can clearly establish that equal access was provided notwithstanding
Cited 33 timesPublished875 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 1995
The defendants also contend that Cavender and Siewert are entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, it can not be concluded that Cavender and Siewert reasonably should have known that their conduct may have violated a clearly established right.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 2025
They assert, instead, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was unconstitutional to “detain those in contact or associated with the students accused of serious misconduct … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Beaman v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2023
When presented with a qualified immunity argument, the court “must address two questions: whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established … Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam).2 Berman argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that he would have known that
Cited 0 timesUnknownIn Re Wheat Rail Freight Rate Antitrust Litigation
579 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 1984
The court began its analysis of the implied immunity issue by recognizing that immunity not expressly granted by statute is the exception to the rule: It is well-established ... that regulated industries “are not per se exempt … The court stated “implementation of unapproved agreements, including activities involving the establishment of rates that are filed as tariffs, is not immune from the antitrust laws.” Id. at 1241 .
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2018
Once Defendants invoke qualified immunity, 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.” … If, accepting Plaintiff’s account and drawing inferences in the light most favorable to her, Morsi’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, then Morsi warrants qualified immunity. See Mullenix, 136 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 29, 2023
“To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a … “The test of qualified immunity for police officers is whether a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2023
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … of clearly established law.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2021
doctrine of qualified immunity shields Defendants from liability. … Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability under § 1983 ‘for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
Cited 0 timesUnknown367 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 8, 1973
Lest this court be misunderstood, it here states clearly that it does not consider constitutional rights of plaintiffs “worthless.” … The individual plaintiffs are legally competent and are represented by well-qualified and competent counsel.
Cited 5 timesPublished752 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 2010
Act (“Tort Immunity Act”). … Although Defendants use terms associated with qualified immunity in challenging the Fourth Amendment standard, they fail to make any specific qualified immunity arguments in their post-trial briefs. See Saucier v.
Cited 5 timesPublished374 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 1974
It is well-established that state custodians are not immune from liability under the civil rights statutes. See Wheeler v. Glass, 473 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1973). … The public interest would be disserved by the imposition of such a predictive burden, for qualified people might thereby be deterred from entering public service. Slate v. McFetridge, supra.
Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 7, 2025
right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Muniz fails to show that the right the Officer Defendants allegedly violated is clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownIn Re Automotive Professionals, Inc.
379 B.R. 746 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 23, 2007
The applicability of sovereign immunity and the automatic stay The bankruptcy court rejected the State’s argument that sovereign immunity protects it from being required to return assets under its control to API, citing, … Both of its arguments can therefore be resolved by determining whether the State’s liquidation efforts qualify as an exercise of its police and regulatory powers.
Cited 10 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 2025
Qualified immunity shields state actors from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are protected by qualified immunity because neither officer violated Spencer’s clearly established constitutional rights.8 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknown348 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 15, 1972
In holding that the Speech or Debate Clause did not immunize Senator Brewster from prosecution on federal bribery charges, the Supreme Court distinguished between Congressional conduct which is clearly part of the legislative … Established by the apportionment judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered September 20, 1971. 2 .
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2025
“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The qualified immunity analysis at summary judgment is a two- step inquiry – whether defendant: (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established at the time. Thompson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRomero v. The Village of Alsip
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025
have believed that the actions taken were objectively reasonable and were within constitutional limits that were clearly established at the time. … Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to both claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna