Case law

In re Elysium Health-Chromadex Litig.

354 F. Supp. 3d 330 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2019

immunity. … The second principle guiding the Court's decision is that case law establishes that a favorable outcome need not materialize at the direction of a government entity or as a result of government action for it to qualify for

Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC

386 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 7, 2019

By enacting the price-per-page provision, the Legislature clearly intended to control patient costs associated with access to medical records. … Although Sections 18(11) and (12) do not provide immunity for overcharges in violation of § 18(2)(e), see Spiro v. Healthport Tech. , 73 F.

Shirck v. Thomas

315 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 1970

Since affidavits on both sides establish the material facts, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment as required by that rule. … The same considerations are clearly applicable to probationary teachers and the determinations rest with the duly constituted public school authorities.

Baxter

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 2026

Nevertheless, the Court found Cheadle was entitled to qualified immunity because Baxter had failed to point to any law clearly establishing that Cheadle’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Cheadle has qualified immunity for the federal claims in Counts I and V. Plaintiff retorts, Mr. Cheadle does not have qualified immunity.

Felix v. City of N.Y.

344 F. Supp. 3d 644 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2018

Defendant is correct that courts in this circuit often "favor bifurcating Monell clams," and may do so "even when the individual defendants may assert a defense of qualified immunity such that a finding in their favor does … Aug. 13, 2008) (finding bifurcation inappropriate largely because individual officers had asserted a qualified immunity defense).

Airday v. City of N.Y.

310 F. Supp. 3d 399 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 10, 2018

The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing the AC Against Schwam on the Grounds of Qualified Immunity is Denied "Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads … immunity.

Kuczinski v. City of N.Y.

352 F. Supp. 3d 314 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 18, 2019

The plaintiff does not clearly delineate what speech is the basis of his retaliation claim. … This level of generality is insufficient to establish a defamation claim.

Festa v. Westchester Med. Ctr. Health Network

380 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2019

Analysis Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, that Plaintiff has failed to establish municipal liability, and that Israel is entitled to qualified immunity. ( See … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff successfully stated a First *324 Amendment retaliation claim, Israel is entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs. Mem. 16-17.)

Extendido Professional Care-Troy, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

698 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1988

Clearly, under 42 U.S.C. § 1396i(c)(2), the defendants could terminate the plaintiff facility’s participation in the Medicaid program under some circumstances. … Congress established the process in part due to the government’s interest in a quick and inexpensive method of dealing with hazardous conditions faced by Medicaid recipients.

Baxter

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 7, 2025

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “[T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.

Bormann v. Tomlin

461 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 15, 1978

A state or county tax official will be liable for damages under § 1983 only if he violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights intentionally or with reckless disregard of those rights. … The question of whether defendants can establish that they have qualified immunity in the circumstances of this case remains.

Brandon Jackson v. Richard Arnold, David Mitchell, and Rob Jeffreys

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2026

“Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Feeley v. City of New York

362 F. Supp. 3d 153 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2019

Edrei was an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity and the Second Circuit's jurisdiction was limited to the narrow question *159 of whether qualified immunity was established as a matter of law. … Edrei , which was an appeal from the denial of a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity, offers helpful guidance to district courts presented with Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims.

Evans v. Tharp

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2024

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Hammond v. Illinois State Board of Education

624 F. Supp. 1151 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 10, 1986

Further, previous versions of this paragraph clearly required that the most recent teaching experience be in Illinois. … Although a discussion of the plaintiff’s privileges and immunities clause argument is unnecessarily based on the above, the Court deems it appropriate to make a few comments.

Purdle

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2026

“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 person would have … Count 1 Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on Count 1 because going on a hunger strike is not a clearly established protected activity under

Cornelius

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2026

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Aug. 5, 2022) (denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because facts viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff suggested violation of clearly established constitutional right).

EL v. Evans

694 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 2010

immunity.”) … In addition, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not apply to shield Defendants from liability, in accordance with the Seventh Circuit’s finding in Roger, which parallels the facts of the instant case.

Craft v. Robert Burns

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2024

Additionally, prosecutors acting in investigative capacity may claim qualified immunity, which covers conduct that does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would … Finally, Plaintiff contends that he has established both that a constitutional right was violated, and that the right was clearly established, so qualified immunity does not apply.

Davila v. Gutierrez

330 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 2018

"The doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims fall within an applicable waiver." See Makarova v. … Nevertheless, "dismissal of a pro se complaint is [ ] appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements." Rahman v.