Case law

Americana Nursing Centers, Inc. v. Weinberger

387 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 1975

Plaintiffs are providers of skilled nursing services qualified under 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(j). … Where agency action is challenged on due process grounds, it is “immune from judicial review, if ever, only by the plainest manifestation of congressional intent to that effect.” Gonzalez v.

Gakuba v. Doe

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 28, 2025

“A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … A clearly established right must be “‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” because otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would be transformed “into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by

Stagg P.C. v. U.S. Dep't of State

354 F. Supp. 3d 448 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2019

Importantly, however, Plaintiff never clearly specifies what language in the ITAR permits the Court to exclude publication as an export. … Nothing in either the AECA or the ITAR immunizes otherwise-regulated exports simply because they are undertaken through a particular technological medium.

Barnet v. Ministry Sports of the Hellenic Republic

391 F. Supp. 3d 291 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 21, 2019

to Defendant's sovereign immunity. … As a result, Defendant is not immune from suit. 1. The Commercial Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act "The FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court."

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.

First Nat. Bank of Effingham v. United States

565 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 21, 1983

Second, defendant contends that by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 2680 , it is absolutely immune from civil liability. … to promulgate uniform standards to which the state safety programs should conform to qualify for funding and federal approval.

Dorn

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 2026

“To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time … However, qualified immunity is a conjunctive test, and failure upon either element grants qualified immunity to the prison official. See Thomas v.

Jedliska v. Snow

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

Qualified immunity, remember, consists of two inquiries: (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. … “Rule 59(e) requires that the moving party clearly establish a manifest error of law or an intervening change in the controlling law or present newly discovered evidence.” Id.

Mooneyham

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

Counts I and II: Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from trial for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly … (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Esker v. Lutz

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

He further claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a “clearly established” law (Id., pp. 17-18). … In establishing the second prong in the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was “clearly established”. Ashcroft v.

Kelly v. United States

553 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2008

Plaintiff has, however, failed to establish that the security officers at USP Marion were not making discretionary policy decisions when plaintiffs encounter with the inmate occurred. … Clearly, at least one guard was present at the time of the incident.

Matthews v. Butler

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 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 … 2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Lamon

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

Qualified immunity shields 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 … In the end, that distinction does not matter because Plaintiff has met the second requirement of qualified immunity analysis — that the constitutional right be clearly established.

Jedliska v. Snow

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly … “A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’” Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v.

Robinson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 6, 2026

“To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time … This argument also fails because it has clearly been established that the Defendants treated Robinson’s injury.

Beauvoir v. Falco

345 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 5, 2018

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiff's constitutional claims were to survive summary judgment, they are entitled to qualified immunity because "it was objectively reasonable for Sgt. … The Court finds that there are just enough facts for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to be granted on the qualified immunity argument.

Gosier v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 4, 2025

In response, Green asserts qualified immunity because she believed that offenders could not receive duplicate copies at the time, and such right to have multiple copies was not clearly established in March 2018. … In analyzing an assertion of qualified immunity, “courts consider whether the facts alleged demonstrate a constitutional violation, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established.”

Barnes Ex Rel. Barnes v. Maytag Corp.

799 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 1992

Private action is immune from the restrictions of the fourteenth amendment. … The plaintiffs final argument is that the defendant has not complied with ERISA’s *933 procedural rules requiring the retirement plan (1) to establish “reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic relations

Hess v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University

149 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 9, 2015

Defendants also presented a qualified immunity argument asserting that the law entitling Hess to the relief he seeks was not clearly established. Id. at 3. … Hess further claimed that the law clearly protected his rights; therefore, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mister v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

790 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 1992

Wade standard is designed for eases brought under § 1983, in which the plaintiff needs to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Whatever concerns the Seventh Circuit harbors over the absence of qualified immunity in actions against private actors under § 1981 appear to be satisfied in straightforward employment discrimination claims, since the law