Case law

O'Connor v. Smith

49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 153 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Mar 8, 1996

Claimant also disputes the applicability of qualified immunity, and finally argues that his allegations of malice are sufficient to support his libel claim even if qualified immunity is held applicable. … or individual citizens receive only qualified privilege under the constitutional immunity afforded by New York Times v.

Village of Harristown v. State

48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 424 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jan 23, 1996

The draftsmanship of this statute — which placed this immunity clause within a larger section, rather than establishing it as a free-standing provision within the code — suggests that it is but an aspect of the subject addressed … The IDOT activity involved was the mowing of the highway right-of-way, which is clearly related to — and virtually a part of— IDOT’s ownership and maintenance of the highway right-of-way.

Rosenbaum v. State

30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 560 · Court of Claims of Illinois · May 12, 1975

It is a well-established principle of the common law that an immunity exists in favor of public officials when they are exercising their official discretion on matters which are discretionary in nature and not ministerial … Quite apart from the doctrine of governmental immunity, the case law in this State has developed the doctrine of public officials immunity.

Flaim v. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections

30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 635 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jun 11, 1975

Ct. 1347 , indicates clearly, we believe, that the assertion of sovereign immunity by a State is not offensive to any provision of the Constitution of the United States.” … It is well-established law in Illinois that public officials are immune from liability for performing discretionary functions. The rationale for such immunity was best expressed by Judge Learned Hand in Gregoire v.

Rosenbaum v. State

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 38 · Court of Claims of Illinois · May 12, 1975

It is a well established principle of the common law that an immunity exists in favor of public officials when they are exercising their official discretion on matters which are discretionary in nature and not ministerial … On May 12, 1975, we allowed the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss stating therein that “It is a well established principle of the common law that an immunity exists in favor of public officials when they are exercising their

Bodine v. State

35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 777 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Mar 18, 1983

It is also well established that service of the notice on either the Attorney General or the clerk of the Court but not both will not suffice in meeting the requirements of the statute. (See Byrne v. … Our supreme court has stated however, that this governmental immunity is qualified and that estoppel may be invoked against a governmental body iff certain instances.” ( 90 Ill. App. 3d 410, 414 .)

Hagensick v. State

45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jul 14, 1992

Therefore the immunity applicable to the Forest Preserve should also extend to the Respondent. … Respondent again asserts in the motion that the State is immune from liability under the Snowmobile Act.

Gendel v. State

38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jul 11, 1984

In this instance, Respondent argues, that since the Director would be immune from liability based on the immunity granted public officials for discretionary acts in their official capacity, the State should also be immune … The Claimants therein were female driver examiner aides who unsuccessfully applied for or were available and qualified for the higher position of driver examiner.

Kamin v. State

21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 467 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Sep 25, 1953

The Departmental Report establishes that the canyon was clearly marked, and posted beside the trail 20 feet before reaching the point of the accident. … This condition was clearly visible to the deceased.

Glenstone Homeowners Ass'n v. State

48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 388 · Court of Claims of Illinois · May 13, 1996

First, “dedicated to and accepted” is clearly used in its real estate context. … This is clearly an express contract claim, not an implied contract claim.

Peterson v. State

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 104 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jul 27, 1984

No evidence was ever presented to establish the proper design and maintenance standards for highways as they existed in 1962. … On the other hand, while Respondent’s negligence is established, it is further established that decedent was not exercising reasonable care for his own safety and was thus guilty of contributory negligence.

Dixon Fruit Co. v. State

22 Ill. Ct. Cl. 271 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Mar 16, 1956

Stats., (1933 State Bar Association Edition), and the doctrine of governmental immunity was in full effect. … Since the 1945 amendment to the Court of Claims Act, the doctrine of governmental immunity is no longer applied to claims against the state.

Gordon v. State

43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 146 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jan 8, 1991

Section 1 of ‘An Act in relation to immunity for the State of Illinois’ (Ill. Rev. … App. 3d 1097 , 507 N.E.2d 1251 : “The requirements necessary to establish a public highway by prescription under the statute are the same as those necessary to establish a private easement by prescription.

People v. Richards & Kelly Manufacturing Co.

1 Ill. Cir. Ct. 171 · Illinois Circuit Court · Dec 12, 1900

“A proviso must be construed to qualify what is affirmed in the body of the act, section or paragraph which precedes it.” Boone v. Juliet, 1 Scam. 258 . … This objection, as we have before pointed out, is removed by the immunity clause contained in the section.

Sass v. State

36 Ill. Ct. Cl. 111 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Feb 27, 1984

Defendant then filed an answer and affirmative defense again raising the issue of sovereign immunity. … Finally, while the evidence in the trial court record establishes nonuse of the easement by the preponderance of the evidence, in the opinion of the undersigned the record does not necessarily establish by the preponderance

Brown v. Southern Illinois University

47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 336 · Court of Claims of Illinois · May 12, 1994

The fact that punitive damages have not been assessed against governmental units in Illinois is based on strong public policy grounds as well as sovereign immunity. … After all, that was a clearly negligent act on the part of the university which violated express provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code, section 12 — 208(b) and 11 — 804(a), (b) (625 ILCS 5/12 — 208(b) and 625 ILCS 5/11

Decatur Earthmover Credit Union v. Ryan

52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 414 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Aug 30, 1999

We presume that the immunities cover damages that are caused by the two specified kinds of occurrences. The second clause clearly covers the instant facts. … In its petition for rehearing (paragraph 3(d), at 3), Claimant advances the "* * * well established rule of statutory construction which states ‘an express statutory requirement here, contrasted with statutory silence there

Williams v. State

49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 109 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Aug 28, 1996

In the present claim, the Claimant’s current condition is not clearly apparent from the diagnosis given by a medical specialist near the time of the injury. … Thus, Claimants counsel contends that $1,613.55 of the $2,000 award is subject to an attorneys lien and is therefore immunized from seizure to pay Claimants delinquent child support.

Garimella v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 350 · Court of Claims of Illinois · May 8, 1996

This seemingly bars all or almost all mandatory injunctions, and may well bar many prohibitory injunctions as well, but it clearly prohibits employment and State program reinstatement claims like this case and Ellis. … XIII, section 4), thus deconstitutionalizing this doctrine which had been established directly by the 1870 Constitution.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman & Helpers Local Union No. 525 v. Board of Governors of Southern Illinois University

53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 245 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Apr 3, 2001

See, section 1 of the State Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 5/1. … If this Court had concurrent jurisdiction, there would be no established means for a litigant to secure the “uniformity that the Act * * * seeks.”