Case law

Williams v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CLINTON COM.

52 Ill. App. 3d 328 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 1977

This assumption was erroneous since everything that was thrown out occupied that amount of space and part of what was discarded was clearly noncoaching material. … Stat. 1965, ch. 85, par. 1—101 et seq.), governmental immunities have become the exception rather than the rule. Unless the defendant can demonstrate an applicable immunity under the statute, there is no immunity.

Donovan v. VILLAGE OF OHIO

397 Ill. App. 3d 844 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 2010

This qualified immunity is codified in section 15.1 of the Emergency Telephone System Act (ETS Act), which reads: “No public agency, public safety agency, emergency telephone system board, or unit of local government assuming … As the Illinois Supreme Court has explained: “The distinction between an immunity and a duty is crucial, because only if a duty is found is the issue of whether an immunity or defense is available to the governmental entity

United States v. All Funds on Deposit with O'Brien & Associates

892 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2012

Claimants’ injury is also clearly caused by the government’s forfeiture action and can be redressed by a favorable determination in the current case. Thus claimants satisfy the other requirements for standing. … The government contends that claimants still lack prudential standing because they cannot qualify as innocent owners.

Clay v. Friedman

541 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 11, 1982

Finally, Doherty is not entitled to absolute immunity for such supervisory acts. Immunity of public defenders is a reflection of prosecutorial immunity. See, Robinson v. Bergstrom, 579 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1978). … Count XI Count XI attempts to state a cause of action against the Circuit Court for establishing a policy that led to Clay’s injuries.

Evans v. Page

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2003

Section 202 of the ADA provides as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the … Although Congress properly and clearly expressed its intent to do so, it acted on the basis of an inadequate record and imposed a remedy that is neither congruent nor proportional to the problem it identified."

First Finance Co. v. Pellum

62 Ill. 2d 86 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1975

Thus, the attempt to establish by specific statutory provision the governmental immunity from garnishment which existed by court decision prior to Henderson did not succeed. … It is clearly distinguishable from an action in which a judgment or decree is sought against a defendant and does not serve to make the State “a defendant or party” within the contemplation of the Immunity Act.

Ryan v. Glen Ellyn Raintree Condominium Ass'n

2014 IL App (2d) 130682 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 27, 2014

And it would amount to a presumption by this Court that the legislature intended to abrogate the common law, where such intent was not clearly or plainly expressed.” … Instead, section 2 eliminates (subject to the “willful or wanton” qualifier) liability for “acts or omissions” in snow and ice removal efforts, i.e., for activity or passivity in such efforts.

Wheeler v. Piazza

364 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2019

While Plaintiff clearly need not put forward evidence that supports his claim at the motion to dismiss stage, Carlson v. … Because these specific actions were clearly within the scope of their employment, sovereign immunity applied. Id.

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.

McCraven v. City of Chicago

18 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1998

This is sufficient to take this case outside the intracorporate immunity doctrine. E. Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Deceit Mr. … The City, as a municipality, is immune from punitive damages unless immunity has heen waived. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 2748 , 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981); Kolar v.

Madison v. City of Chicago

2017 IL App (1st) 160195 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 2017

making no distinction between the first sentence of section 2-101 and the second sentence that lists specific types of claims; our supreme court viewed the claim before it as “excluded” from the Act and did not qualify … To accomplish this, the 2003 amendment used the identical language used in section 13-212(a) of the Code, establishing a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice claims against physicians or

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.

Both v. Collins

339 Ill. App. 437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 21, 1950

The instruction is clearly bad and we see no alternative to deciding that the giving of the instruction was reversible error. In aid of a new trial, we think we should decide a vital question of law presented to us. … Presently in Illinois the doctrine of immunity of public corporations in performance of governmental functions except when liability is imposed by statute is well established. Taylor v. Berwyn, 372 Ill. 124, 128 .

Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15

317 Ill. App. 3d 453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 22, 2000

App. 3d at 809 , 704 N.E.2d at 424 (in which this court concluded that a park district coach’s decisions regarding what equipment and safety precautions were needed during tumbling maneuvers qualified “as the making of policy … The court further explained that the “public policy considerations in authorizing, and indeed encouraging, teachers to have broad discretion and latitude in the former situation quite clearly do not apply” where the issue

Williams v. Brown

398 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 16, 1975

But the majority of the Supreme Court declined to confirm jurisdiction over the action because the record did not clearly establish the required $10,000 in controversy: “Since ... no stipulation as to the amount in controversy … was filed, we cannot say on this state of the record whether or not jurisdiction was affirmatively established.” 412 U.S. at 514 , 93 S.Ct. at 2227 .

Kinzer v. City of Chicago

128 Ill. 2d 437 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1989

This does not, however, conclude our discussion of immunity, because Illinois recognizes the common law public official immunity doctrine, notwithstanding the Tort Immunity Act. (Mora v. … Grim’s official conduct in entering into contracts, incurring expenses and charging these expenditures to Fund 666 clearly fall within the boundaries of the common law public official immunity doctrine.

Travionte Williams v. Officer Miller

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 8, 2026

Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields officials from liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … “[R]ights defined only at ‘a high level of generality’ are not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.”

DeSMET EX REL. v. County of Rock Island

219 Ill. 2d 497 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2006

This court’s holding in Huey that the public duty rule exists ‘ [i] ndependent [ly] of statutory or common-law concepts of sovereign immunity’ (emphasis added) (Huey, 41 Ill. 2d at 363 ) establishes that neither this court … statute is not at issue here because the record in this case clearly shows that these governmental defendants rendered police protection service to the general public via their dispatch centers.

Application of Du Page County Collector

243 Ill. App. 3d 823 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 13, 1993

The collector contends that this Tort Immunity Act language clearly places liability insurance taxes outside the limitations of section 25.05. … Thus the question before us is whether language in the Tort Immunity Act clearly and expressly excluded liability taxes from the section 25.05 limitation.

Prakash v. Parulekar

2020 IL App (1st) 191819 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2020

The clear language of the Act establishes that it was not intended to protect those who commit tortious acts and then seek refuge in the immunity conferred by the Act. … We find that defendant has failed to establish that plaintiff’s IIED claim was meritless and retaliatory.