Case law

Sabol v. Walter Payton College Preparatory High School

804 F. Supp. 2d 747 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2011

And absent a constitutional violation, there is no need to reach the issue of qualified immunity (see Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545 , 559 n. 17 (7th Cir.2008) (Posner, J., concurring)). … Because the claim patently fails on its merits, there is no need to consider whether any defendants are entitled to immunity under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/2-109 and 10/2-201. .

Brown v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2024

Indeed, the opposite is the case, as the Seventh Circuit has applied the defense of qualified immunity in cases substantially similar to the instant case. 4 The law clearly permits the defense of qualified immunity to … As explained above, in order to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show that the contours of the right he claims Defendants violated were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Santella v. Grishaber

672 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 15, 1987

This factual statement omits allegations directed particularly toward establishing Santella’s Section 1983 claim against City. 4 . … Because Sec *326 tion 8-101 is in Article 8 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 85, ¶¶ 1-101 through 10-101, (the "Tort Immunity Act"), defendants’ counsel concludes the

Harris v. Richardt

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2018

Qualified immunity applies to governmental employees performing discretionary functions and shields them from “liability for civil damages, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The second examines whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Pearson v.

Hollstein v. City of Zion

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 16, 2019

Police officers “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.” … Qualified immunity must apply here because the officers did not violate clearly established law. B.

United States v. DiGrazia

213 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 1963

Under all the circumstances, it would seem desirable to establish the rule that, except as to perjury indictments arising out of testimony before the Grand Jury, no individual who is not warned of his privilege against self-incrimination … While some of these questions are not prejudicial and might properly be asked in testing the validity of the witness’ reliance on her constitutional privilege, others are clearly prejudicial and could only be calculated to

Harding v. Rosewell

22 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1998

Fuglsang argue that they are not liable for any of the alleged defamatory statements because they possess a qualified privilege or have absolute immunity. … Both absolute immunity and qualified privilege are affirmative defenses that need to be raised in the defendants’ answer.

Hayes v. Board of Education for the City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2022

Thus, a court must determine whether the facts actually alleged clearly establish a qualified immunity defense. … Reading the complaint in her favor, Plaintiff has not clearly alleged facts that support Defendants’ qualified immunity or immunity under the TIA.

Silva v. Read

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 14, 2021

“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 … Evaluating an assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to ask “whether the plaintiff's allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers

304 F.R.D. 242 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2014

The email is not privileged as editorial changes or contributions by a lawyer do not qualify under the attorney/client privilege. Musa-Muaremi v. … The email is essentially blank and is clearly not privileged. 10. Exhibit 10 is a February 15, 2011 email from Mr. Wells to Ms. Morgan. The email says nothing and clearly does not ask for legal advice.

Jackson v. Vasquez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 18, 2023

As to all asserted claims, Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from liability. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v.

Werthman v. ILLINOIS DMH/DD

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.

Zurek v. Hasten

553 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 15, 1982

Moriarity, 563 F.2d 343, 351-52 (7th Cir. 1977) is clearly distinguishable. … But even if it did apply, it would not enlarge the scope of immunity beyond what the State claims for itself. 9 .

Bear Sterns & Co., Inc. v. Wyler

182 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2002

That immunity would necessarily be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court continued, and under Kastigar v. … Clearly, Wyler's circumstances are rather divorced from those present in Bin Laden .

Tomkins v. Village of Tinley Park

566 F. Supp. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1983

Thus, the mere fact that plaintiff’s property was taken without a pre-deprivation hearing does not necessarily establish a § 1983 cause of action. … The Lynch Court noted that: the Congress that enacted the predecessor of § 1983 ... seems clearly to have intended to provide a federal judicial forum for the redress of wrongful deprivations of property by persons acting

Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain

650 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 1986

The sole issue is whether the Commercial Office is “a state or political subdivision of a foreign state” for purposes of service under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (a), or whether it is … By this standard, the evidence before the court clearly establishes that the Commercial Office is part and parcel of the Government of Spain, and thus that the Commercial Office is “a foreign state or political subdivision

McCullough v. Rodriguez Jr.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 13, 2024

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if his actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted." Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 2021).

Holmes v. Dabrowski

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2020

The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity Even assuming, arguendo, that Holmes’s claim is not time-barred, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to that claim. … Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory

Quick v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability stemming from discretionary functions, but only if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To survive a motion to dismiss in the face of a qualified immunity defense, the Complaint must plausibly allege that Bender violated Plaintiffs clearly established rights by denying them a license.

Pennie v. City Of Rockford

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 2022

The plaintiffs argued that Duguay clearly established the right, so that qualified immunity did not apply. Id. at *13–14. … Based on that material difference, the Hardiman court held that Duguay was not sufficiently analogous, so that it could have clearly established a right under qualified immunity doctrine.