Case law

Clemons v. Wexford Health Services, Inc.

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

Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 219 (7th Cir. 2015) (“It is the litigants’ duty to clearly identify material facts in dispute . . . .” … when presented only with evidence limited to the experience of a single plaintiff, numerous courts “have concluded that four or more incidents over varying periods—sometimes less than nineteen months—are insufficient to qualify

Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, Illinois

404 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 1975

IMMUNITY The members of the City Council and the members of the Plan Commission are argued to be immune from any damages claim related to their official duties. … The most recent Supreme Court decision on the matter is consonant with Slate and with a qualified immunity of public officials which would bar recovery under these allegations. Wood v.

Katris v. City of Waukegan

498 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 1980

The first of these arguments is clearly incorrect. … The statute itself suggests that a qualified applicant has a reasonable expectation of receiving a license.

Khorrami v. Rolince

493 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2007

Qualifted Immunity Defendants argue that I should dismiss Plaintiffs claim based on qualified immunity. I find that these attacks on Plaintiffs complaint are premature. See Alvarado v. … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir.2001) (“[A] complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.”); Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 , 765 n. 3 (7th Cir.2000).

Werthman v. Illinois Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities

831 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1993

Arnold was appointed acting superintendent of Read, even though plaintiff was more qualified. … The statutory language must be unmistakably clear before an intent to abrogate the states’ immunities will be recognized.

Munoz v. Bradbury

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 2022

Qualified immunity is designed to protect government officials from monetary liability unless their conduct violated a plaintiff’s “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … When presented with a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right was clearly established at the time that the defendant’s conduct occurred.

Flower Cab Co. v. Petitte

658 F. Supp. 1170 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 1987

Id. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 In order to establish a violation of Section 1983, plaintiffs must prove that defendants acted under color of state law, and that their conduct deprived plaintiffs of a right, privilege or immunity secured … In fact, its provisions place significant constraints on the Commissioner’s ability to affect the existing terms of the taxicab ordinance and clearly establishes the impropriety of her conduct.

Slavin v. Tanner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2023

Prison officials "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time." … Tanner argues that both parts of the qualified immunity inquiry cut in his favor: (1) Slavin's allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and (2) there is no clearly established right to a fully

Allen v. United States

547 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 1982

Finally, the Court of Claims concluded that its resolution of the issue was more harmonious with the long-established principle that the Government would not waive its sovereign immunity from interest claims, unless Congress … clearly stated that that was its intention.

Haliw v. City of South Elgin

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 2020

Ct. at 1868.6 Qualified immunity protects 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 … Liability is not clearly established 6The Court’s earlier rejection of the Defendants’ qualified immunity argument was limited to Haliw’s other, non-conspiracy claims.

Golbert v. Aurora Chicago Lakeshore Hospital LLC

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2021

“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 … A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Qualkenbush v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank

219 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2002

Although this text clearly refers to two different parties, it does not necessarily mean that the definitions are mutually exclusive. … This is not a qualified immunity case where a plaintiff must establish that a defendant violated “clearly established law,” and the absence of binding precedent can itself be sufficient to dismiss a claim.

Bonny v. Society of Lloyd's

784 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 1992

Additionally, even though Lloyd’s and its related defendants agreed not to seek immunity from the 1933 Act claims, the Magistrate Judge found that an English court could apply the immunity on its own initiative to further … Defendants implicitly suggest that Lloyd’s statutory immunity is waiveable.

Gale v. United States

768 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 28, 1991

The question, therefore, is whether § 404(a)(8)(C) establishes a legal fiction, or merely acknowledges what is already clearly established. *1309 According to the plaintiffs, the emphasis in § 404(a)(8)(C) is on limiting … self-employed individuals to be covered by qualified plans and by extending to them some of the favorable tax benefits present law now provides in the case of qualified retirement plans established by employers for their

United States v. Coleman Capital Corporation

295 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 21, 1969

Therefore, the defendant clearly violated the Act and the regulations with respect to these three transactions. … It has been well established that S.B.A. regulations have the force and effect of law. Hernstadt v. Programs for Television, Inc., 36 Misc.2d 628 , 232 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1962).

Wellwoods Development Co. v. City of Aurora

631 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 1986

City’s Motion City argues principally for immunity from antitrust liability. Parker v. … Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-52 , 63 S.Ct. 307, 313-14 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943) established the Sherman Act’s nonapplicability to the trade-restraining actions of “sovereign” state governments — not as a matter of immunity in the

Lipford v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 19, 2018

clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Ct. at 552 (a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).

Rogers v. City Of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2023

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 … Given the holdings and reasoning of Price and Lawrence, and based on the undisputed evidence presented at trial, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because Defendant’s conduct did not violate a clearly established

SPIZZIRRI v. Village of Bensenville

109 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 8, 2000

Concerning plaintiffs individual capacity claims, the individuals defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, and they … Legal Standard In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court considers “whether relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations.”

Fricks v. Prine

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2025

Qualified Immunity Even if Officer Prine used excessive force, he is shielded from liability if his conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Oakes, in affirming the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a reasonable officer would have known he violated clearly established case law when he “administer[ed] closed-fist