Case law

DeJong v. Pembrook

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

Because DeJong has properly pleaded a constitutional violation, Robb can receive qualified immunity only if her conduct was not clearly established as unlawful. … Again, because DeJong has properly pleaded a constitutional violation, Pembrook and Ball can receive qualified immunity only if their conduct was not clearly established as unlawful.

Champ v. Forcum

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2023

Plaintiff also argues qualified immunity does not shield the Defendants from liability because access to legal materials and the courts is a clearly established First Amendment right (Id. at pp. 8-9). … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person

Smith v. Pappas

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “…[Q]ualified 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

Murawski v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections

285 F. Supp. 3d 691 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2018

"Although the Eleventh Amendment does not explicitly bar suits against a state by its own citizens, it is well established that a non-consenting state is immune from suits brought by its own citizens in federal court." … "[T]he [State] Board of Elections is a state agency for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress has not clearly abrogated New York's immunity and New York has not unequivocally waived it." Credico v.

Baxter v. City of Belleville, Ill.

720 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1989

At some point, however, the immune system becomes implicated and symptoms occur. … Irrational hysteria and public panic cannot support activity that violates the FHA and is clearly discriminatory.

Wexler v. Allegion (Uk) Ltd.

374 F. Supp. 3d 302 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 2019

The Appellate Division has also contrasted absolute privileges with qualified privileges in holding that a qualified privilege-for communications between persons sharing a common interest-does not bar a claim for breach of … a non-disparagement clause, because "[a]n absolute privilege protects a greater public interest than a qualified privilege."

Fairchild Republic Co. v. United States

712 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 17, 1988

Finally, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that immunity has been waived. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 187-89 , 56 S.Ct. 780, 784-85 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Seglin v. … As the Shu-man court clearly stated, “[l]ack of due care in promulgating a policy, or in having no policy or program at all on an issue, however imprudent it might seem, is encompassed within the discretionary function exception

Gaddis v. Stearns

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants Stearns and Spinka are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Gaddis does not address qualified immunity and has not met his burden of demonstrating that Stearns’ actions were so egregious that no reasonable person would believe that he did not violate a clearly established right.

Daugherty v. Doe

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that if they used excessive force, they are entitled to the defense of Qualified Immunity (Doc. 136, pp. 9-10). … The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002).

Santiago v. Bradley

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 2021

The doctrine of 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 … In order to prevail, Santiago must demonstrate a violation of his clearly established rights under the First Amendment in order to defeat the qualified immunity defense. Purvis v.

Davis v. Harper

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants Trikha and Biama also move for summary judgement based on qualified immunity, arguing that administration of the EEM did not violate clearly established rights. … Governmental officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Coleman-Napper v. CKEM, Inc

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 2023

“[O]fficers 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.” Id. … Here, Defendants Cleveland and Cooper argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right for Mr. Napper to have Roever arrested.

In re Jackson

290 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 18, 1968

This authority is believed to exist quite clearly under Section 658 and Section 2(a) (15) of the Bankruptcy Act ( 11 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 11(a) (15)). … The power to issue an injunction when necessary to prevent the defeat or impairment of its jurisdiction is, therefore, inherent in a court of bankruptcy, as it is in a duly established court of equity.”

Wilson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2026

Government officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Here, Defendants are not shielded by qualified immunity.

Roman v. Hileman

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Armour v. Atkins

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (Doc. 81 at p. 13). … The defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity because government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability when their conduct doesn’t violate

Alexander v. Walls

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that even if an assault occurred, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Governmental officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Williams v. Cooper

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 1, 2020

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that the defendant’s conduct violated his constitutional rights, and (2) that the violated right was clearly established at the time of the … Qualified immunity does not apply here.

Merritt v. United States

484 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 2, 2007

UCHD’s Immunity under the Tort Immunity Act UCHD disclaims liability pursuant to two provisions of the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS §§ 10/6-105 & 6-1069(a). 1 As immunity under the Act is an affirmative defense, UCHD bears … The court rejected the defendant’s claims of immunity under Michigan Avenue National Bank and Mabry because the record clearly showed that the doctor diagnosed the child’s pneumonia.

United States v. $10,000.00 in United States Funds

863 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 1994

It has been well established that the entry of an appearance by a party in a case under the Rules of Admiralty Procedure waives any defects in the service and submits the party to the jurisdiction of the court. … In addition, it has further been clearly established that the mere fact that the government is the plaintiff and has brought the forfeiture action does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity and authorize the bringing