Case law

Moats v. Village of Schaumburg

562 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 1983

Thus, the qualified immunity from section 1983 liability is tested by objective and subjective means and is a less exacting standard than is required to prosecute a criminal or to sustain his arrest. … The Supreme Court has ruled that in the proper case summary judgment is appropriate for a police officer who is charged under section 1983, although subjective good faith is at the heart of the qualified immunity defense.

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).

Johnson v. Edward

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2024

Prevailing on these claims requires Johnson to overcome qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability for damages in their personal capacity unless they violate clearly established law. … The undisputed facts establish that Defendants had at least arguable probable cause, so they are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Baumgardner v. County of Cook

108 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 2000

The parties have agreed that the issue of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim is an issue that is best decided after discovery. … Therefore, the Court declines to address the issue of Krystiniak’s qualified immunity at this time. IV. CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE ADA TO FORECLOSE SEPARATE § 1983 CLAIMS BROUGHT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS A.

Mercardo v. Greer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti- tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and (2) “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reed v.

Bullock v. Sheahan

568 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity County and local government entities are not covered by the Eleventh Amendment. Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430 , 439 (7th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). … to qualified immunity.

Stewart v. McGinnis

800 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 4, 1992

Defendants seek to escape from damages liability as well by invoking the doctrine of qualified immunity. That argument need not be addressed because none of Stewart’s claims has been successful in any event. … immunity terms as well (after all, if a plaintiff has no valid substantive claim, it follows a fortiori that he had no "clearly established” constitutional right when the defendants acted). 5 .

Gamble v. County Of Cook

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2020

As a result, “dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’ … The next issue is whether her constitutional right was “clearly established.”

Anderson-El v. O'KEEFE

897 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 22, 1995

He argues in the alternative that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Serious Medical Needs The “due process clause requires treatment only for serious wounds.” Davis v. … Dworak is entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Aines

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2024

is a clearly established right, meaning that the Defendants are not shielded by qual- ified immunity. Pl.’s Resp. at 10 (citing Monfils, 165 F.3d 511; Jackson, 653 F.3d 647). … But that is too high of a level of generality at which to assess qualified immunity: Williams must either cite a “clearly analogous case establishing the right to be free from the conduct at issue,” or show that even without

Moton v. City of Rockford

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

Fourth, in the alternative, Defendants argue that Officer Vazquez is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law would have informed him that his conduct was unlawful. (Id.at 10.) … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense.” Taylor, 132 F.4th at 486.

Davila

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

Pustul also argues that he has qualified immunity from Davila’s claim. Def.’s Br. at 8–9. … Indeed, Davila cites no cases at all in responding to the qualified immunity de- fense. See id. So qualified immunity does apply, and is another reason why the sum- mary judgment motion must be granted.

Yattoni v. Oakbrook Terrace

801 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 10, 1992

violated the plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights (- U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 536 , citing Harlow v. … McGowan, 957 F.2d 345 , 349 n. 1 (7th Cir.1992) aptly notes that qualified immunity is something of a misnomer in this context, for the law in this area is simpler than the daunting doctrinal label of qualified immunity may

Curry v. Pucinski

864 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 1994

Those materials establish that something was sent to Curry’s lawyer on three occasions. But it is the contents of the mailings that Curry disputes. … Immunity First Pucinski claims that she is entitled to immunity from this lawsuit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Jackson v. Stubenvoll

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “‘shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional … established rights for qualified immunity purposes); Godinez v.

Willis v. United States

600 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1985

“It long as been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction … United States, 532 F.2d 850, 852 (2d Cir.1976), that the fifth amendment does not clearly contemplate redress in the form of damage suits directly against the government.

Epps v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 28, 2022

First, Defendants seek a stay of discovery because Defendant Dart may have qualified immunity. … Dart may raise his qualified immunity defense at a later stage based on a more complete record, but there is currently no pending motion asserting a qualified immunity defense.

Haligas v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified immunity “protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … would not violate clearly established rights.’”

Diedrich v. Wright

550 F. Supp. 805 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 7, 1982

Judged by these standards defendants’ arguments fall far short of establishing that plaintiff assumed the risk of her accident. … Although the release intimates in general terms that defendants are to be held harmless from any and all claims, this phrase is qualified by the more specific terminology which precedes it.