Case law

Larsen v. Provena Hospitals

2015 IL App (4th) 140255 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 2015

Thus, by its plain language, the legislature clearly intended that the Whistleblower Act would apply to physicians who satisfied the statutory definition of employee. … See 105 ILCS 5/14A-30 (West 2010) (explaining the funding available through the Illinois Board of Education for qualified programs focused on the education of gifted and talented children).

Casualty Insurance v. North-Brook Property & Casualty Insurance

150 Ill. App. 3d 472 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1986

Casualty argues that this exclusion further qualifies and limits Schal’s coverage to Schal’s general supervision of Mid-American. … These allegations clearly suggest that Schal had supervisory responsibility and are sufficient to establish that Schal’s liability to Krkljus may arise out of its general supervision of the construction operations performed

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.

Vilardo v. Barrington Community School District 220

406 Ill. App. 3d 713 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2010

“A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.” … In this case, the trial court concluded that plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3 — 102(a) for defendant to protect plaintiff.

People v. Figueroa

2020 IL App (2d) 160650 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 2020

In the event that—I mean, at this point, clearly she would have a right to claim the Fifth but for the State’s use immunity. … Alleged Noncompliance With the Use Immunity Statute ¶ 43 Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously granted use immunity to Casas and Patton because the State failed to establish that those witnesses either

Mastandrea v. Chicago Park District

259 Ill. App. 3d 897 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1994

The Tort Immunity Act, as it existed at the time of plaintiff’s accident in 1984, clearly provided that by obtaining insurance, a local public entity waived immunities otherwise available to it. (Ill. Rev. … Through Smith’s testimony, plaintiff sought to establish the profits plaintiff lost from real estate development activities for the two years following his accident.

People ex rel. Akin v. Butler Street Foundry & Iron Co.

201 Ill. 236 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1903

Immunity statutes must be given a reasonable construction and not a strained and artificial one, and when the court can clearly see that a person is fully protected from the effect of his testimony he should be required to … The defendant urges three reasons why the immunity afforded by this statute is not complete: (1) The immunity does not cover prosecutions under the Federal law nor under the law of the other States; (2) the immunity can not

Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2001

As Welch’s employer, Justice Heiple is protected by a qualified privilege. See Vajda v. Arthur Andersen & Co. , 253 Ill. App. 3d 345, 358-59 (1993). … It is well established that a breach of contract claim against the State is a present claim for relief barred by sovereign immunity. See, e.g. , Smith v. Jones , 113 Ill. 2d 126, 132-33 (1986).

Johannesen v. Eddins

963 N.E.2d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2011

Eventually, the board granted variations establishing an eastern sideyard setback of 32 feet and a front setback of 126 feet. … . ¶ 31 Here, the trial court clearly ruled only on the motion to dismiss brought under the Act.

Ramirez v. Weinberger

363 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 1973

Clearly, a three-judge court is both appropriate and has the power to hear the claims against the state defendants because the amended complaint seeks to enjoin the operation of a state statute on the grounds of unconstitutionality … Without even reaching the substantial problems of plaintiffs’ standing to maintain a mandamus suit against the Secretary and of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, it is clear that plaintiffs’ remedy against the state officials

Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Glover

263 B.R. 588 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 21, 2001

This court first addresses the question of whether Congress clearly abrogated State sovereign immunity under § 106. … “The language of new § 106(a), entitled ‘Waiver of sovereign immunity,’ would seem to confirm ... that Congress has now clearly abrogated state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court.”

Nichols v. Fahrenkamp

2019 IL 123990 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2021

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (explaining that “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … from liability. ¶ 48 The facts of this case clearly demonstrate the flaw in Nichols’s claim.

Township of Jubilee v. State of Illinois

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2010

The plat clearly shows “granite” and “sandstone” at the four corners of the “public square.” … The State fails to present us with any facts that establish that the Township is actually attempting to sell the “public square.”

People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Knecht Services, Inc.

216 Ill. App. 3d 843 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1991

Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 619(a)(9)) on the basis of absolute immunity. … The Attorney General contends that he is entitled to absolute immunity since the allegedly libelous statements were made in conjunction with a matter clearly committed to the responsibility of the Attorney General.

Shefts v. City of Chicago

238 Ill. App. 3d 37 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1992

We note that the City’s motion for summary judgment encompassed the allegation that the City was immune from liability under the Tort Immunity Act. … On the issue of immunity, the City contends that under section 5— 101 of the Tort Immunity Act, the City has no duty to establish an emergency service and, therefore, the City is immune from tort liability.

TEESDALE v. City of Chicago

792 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 26, 2011

Teesdale’s damages claim, though, may fail based on qualified immunity unless there is clearly established law that Teesdale’s past activity does not violate the pertinent statutory prohibitions. … not clearly established.

United States v. Swift

186 F. 1002 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 1911

The parties to it adopt certain machinery and agree to certain methods for the purpose of establishing and maintaining in the future reasonable rates for transportation. … Clearly, it does not. Certainly it cannot be claimed that the pardon granted in 1861 to Gen.

Wilson v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation

376 F. Supp. 3d 849 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2019

Illinois law establishes the procedures for such hearings. … : "when prosecutors are engaged in the sensitive tasks of ... swearing out an information to support a prosecution, the Court has held that they are entitled only to qualified immunity from suit."

In re Marriage of Murray

2014 IL App (2d) 121253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2014

App. 3d 78, 80 (1994), the Conservation District argues that the penalty prescribed by section 35 of the Withholding Act qualifies as “ ‘punitive or exemplary damages’ ” under section 2-102 of the Tort Immunity … App. 3d at 82-83. ¶ 50 Further, denying the Conservation District immunity from a penalty under section 35 of the Withholding Act would contravene the well-established policy of section 2-102 of the Tort

Kopulos v. Pisaneschi

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2025

“When a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right. Leiser v. Kloth, 933 F.3d 696, 701 (7th Cir. 2019). … Kopulos’ response to Pisaneschi’s qualified immunity argument falls well short of demonstrating that Pisaneschi violated Kopulos’ clearly established rights.