Case law

Bertinetti v. Joy Mining MacHinery

231 F. Supp. 2d 828 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2002

Bertinetti is clearly not “prevented” from walking. Thus, the question is whether he is otherwise “substantially limited” in his ability to walk. … Williams, 534 U.S. 184 , 122 S.Ct. 681 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), a case in which “the Court established a higher threshold for the statute than some had believed it contained.” Dvorak v.

Arclar Co. v. Gates

17 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 1998

To bar or extinguish any separate mineral estate or any rights, immunities and interests appurtenant or relating thereto; .. 735 ILCS 5/13-120(1). … The Complaint clearly states that Arelar acquired the interests obtained by O’Gara Coal Company. (Doc. 2, p. 3, ¶ 6); see also (Doc. 2, p. 7, ¶ 5).

Blackman v. Stone

17 F. Supp. 102 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 1936

office in an earlier primary and were not qualified to sign a petition for a new party or other candidates. … Such matters are not the subjects of equitable jurisdiction.’ * * * The doctrine is clearly established that courts of equity will not thus interfere to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public

Cox v. Lashbrook

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 2020

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 person would have … “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 person

Newmont Mining Corp. v. Anglogold Ashanti Ltd.

344 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2018

See SPA §§ 2.04(b), (d), Clearly, then, the Principles were to play a role in calculating the Adjustment Amount. … must be clearly set forth in the contract."

Jones v. LOCAL 520, INTERN. U. OF OPER. ENGINEERS

524 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 1981

Local 520 does *493 not specify under which provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it moves, but clearly it contemplates dismissal under Rule 12. … Clearly, there is an allegation of purposeful discrimination. The case cited by Helmkamp, McDonald v.

Prejean v. Dischbein

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2022

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently established her indigence. Her monthly income is $814, and her monthly expenses for rent, phone, and electricity are approximately $650 (Doc. 4, pp. 2-3). … The Court may dismiss a case if it determines the action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins

Brennan Ctr. for Justice at N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

331 F. Supp. 3d 74 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 2018

Stated summarily, Plaintiff's challenge is not whether the statutes qualify under Exemption 3's first prong, but whether the withheld materials qualify under Exemption 3's second prong, i.e. , whether "the materials withheld … To show that particular documents qualify as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes," an agency must establish a rational nexus between the agency's activity in compiling the documents and "its law

Spence v. Duncan

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 17, 2019

Defendants also argued they were shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Spence filed a timely response in opposition (Doc. 51). … Clearly, Judge Sison’s discussion regarding Count 2 indicated it was Defendant Duncan who was entitled to summary judgment—not Spence.

Walker v. City of N.Y.

367 F. Supp. 3d 39 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2019

This denial of the 1983 action on statute of limitations ground clearly is an injury caused by the parties. … In consequence, the Court considers whether impediment of a § 1983 claim for assault by arresting police officers qualifies an injury that can establish standing for a claim for denial of access to the courts.

Doe v. Putnam Cnty.

344 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018

At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only "clearly ... allege facts demonstrating" each element. Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490 , 518, 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). … The Court accepts Doe No. 2's allegations that he would not qualify for this or any other exception as true.

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Emmerson

27 F.2d 1005 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 13, 1928

The rule is established by other decisions of the court that a graduated franchise tax, which does not vary in direct proportion to the authorized or issued capital stock of a corporation, and which is limited by a reasonable … When it qualifies, it asks for permission to operate a railway franchise.

De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

367 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 15, 2019

Seldin , 422 U.S. 490 , 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ). 1 To qualify, the organization "must meet the same standing test that applies to individuals." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … For example, in Centro , the Second Circuit upheld organizational standing where the challenged conduct would force an organization to "divert money from its other current activities to advance its established organizational

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC

289 F. Supp. 3d 484 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2018

Notice of Breach The MLPA provides that Morgan Stanley's cure or repurchase obligation is triggered upon: (1) Morgan Stanley's discovery of a qualifying breach; or (2) prompt written notice of a qualifying breach. … Thus, although the court clearly signaled that it disagreed with the result in Flagstar I , the question was not directly presented because the factual predicate was not satisfied.

Taylor v. Prince

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2021

This confusion is akin to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, which is sufficient for establishing good cause. … liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Nesby v. Searby

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2021

On April 17, 2020, Searby answered Nesby’s amended complaint and asserted affirmative defenses of absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, collateral estoppel, jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, local government … On that same date, Ingram also answered Nesby’s amended complaint and asserted the doctrine of qualified immunity (Doc. 47).

Walker v. Butler

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, but because the Court grants summary judgment on the merits it need not address the qualified … immunity arguments.

James Pennington, Jr. v. Flora Community Unit School District No 35

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

The School District argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 because it is immunized from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity … The District first points to Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act (Id. at p. 6).

McDonough v. Gencorp, Inc.

750 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1990

Congress clearly intended the availability of multiple remedies for some offenses. … Moreover, since the courts have long held that the NLRA does not preempt state criminal statutes of general applicability and since many crimes defined by state law qualify as RICO predicates, it is also arguable that Congress

Nelson v. Walmart

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 4, 2023

Plaintiff has sufficiently established her indigence and inability to pay the costs of commencing her lawsuit. Her monthly income is approximately $934 and her monthly expenses are approximately the same amount. … The Court may dismiss the case if it determines the action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins