Case law

Ruffino v. Sheahan

61 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation occurred and that the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Erwin v.

Lightner v. Tremont Auto Auction, Inc.

564 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 1983

The Court in Butz established a qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions. Id. at 504, 98 S.Ct. at 2909. … Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1007 (7th Cir.1982) (question of fact whether defendant officials should reasonably have known that their conduct would violate clearly established constitutional norms).

Henry v. Ryan

775 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

Government officials enjoy immunity from civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Closely analogous cases, those decided before the defendants acted, ... are required to find that a constitutional right is clearly established.” Powers v.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Connor v. Foster

833 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 1993

Public officials are immune from liability for monetary damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity, of course, bars only Con-nor's claim for damages.

Chavez v. Illinois State Police

27 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 5, 1998

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must clear two separate hurdles. The plaintiff must show, first, that the right is, in fact, a clearly established right, Apostol v. … In the interests of completeness, the court will consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and will assume, arguendo, that the plaintiffs have established that “freedom of movement” is a clearly established

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

Houston v. Partee

776 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 1991

Now the other defendants named in the Fifth Amended Complaint — four police officers (collectively the “Officers”) — have moved to be dismissed on immunity grounds, this time under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead the question is whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right against that defendant, who had a correspondingly clearly established duty not to infringe that right.

Viero v. Bufano

901 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 28, 1995

Immunity Búfano and Little also seek dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … That is enough to strip them of any putative qualified immunity because, as Hamilton v.

Bell v. Marseilles Elementary School

160 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

“A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context … Board of Educ., 894 F.Supp. 386, 390 (D.Kan.1995) (the law regarding student strip searches is clearly established); Konop, 26 F.Supp.2d at 1196 (denying qualified immunity because “the holding in T.L.O. is not, in any way

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Jones v. Banks

892 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Banks’ second argument, that he is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, is equally unavailing. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Mendez v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2024

violated his Fourth Amendment right or that they violated a clearly established right. … Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 234 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding that case that was decided four months after events in question could not clearly establish any rights for the purposes of qualified immunity); Reynolds v.

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

McLaughlin v. CASLER

634 F. Supp. 2d 881 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2009

to qualified immunity. … with due process, and (3) the undisputed facts establish that Casler and Fritz are entitled to qualified immunity.

Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

953 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity: Counts 9, 11, & 18 Defendant Miller asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity against each and every named plaintiff as to count 9, which alleges violations of Title III, and count 11, which … . *936 1996), in which the court summarily held that defendants have the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity at trial. Id. at 123 .

Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7

283 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

On July 20, 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing as one ground for dismissal section 8—101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which establishes a one-year limitation period for actions commenced against local public … Although the Tort Immunity Act clearly establishes a one-year limitation period for actions filed against local public entities, in addition to following the statute of limitations applicable to an action, we must also follow

Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields

77 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1999

Although qualified immunity is a defense, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Spiegel, 196 F.3d 717, 722 . 2. … If a § 1983 plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the plaintiff also demonstrates that the law “was so ‘clearly established’ that ‘a reasonable official