Case law

Nickon v. City of Princeton

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2007

Defendant contends the Medicare payment does not qualify as a collateral source under Illinois law. … Defendant’s instruction addressed statutory municipal immunity, as defined in section 3–102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3–102 (West 2002)).

Grandalski v. Lyons Township High School District 204

305 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1999

N.E.2d at 815 ), the court first explained that “[s]ection 2—202 is not a general exception to all of the other immunities established by the Tort Immunity Act.” … Section 2—201 of the Tort Immunity Act It is well established that the School Code and the Tort Immunity Act are to be interpreted independently of each other. Bowers v.

People Ex Rel. Vermilion County Conservation District v. Lenover

43 Ill. 2d 209 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1969

Even if it were not, it could not be held that the legislature clearly acted arbitrarily. … We cannot say that the population portion of the classification is clearly unreasonable and palpably arbitrary.

Stallman v. Youngquist

152 Ill. App. 3d 683 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1987

Further, a trial court must take as true well-alleged facts in an affidavit, where uncontradicted by a counteraffidavit, despite any contrary averments in an adverse party’s pleadings that merely purport to establish issues … We note that the Michigan Court of Appeals, applying Michigan’s qualified abrogation of parental tort immunity, has held that a child’s mother bears the same liability for negligent conduct, resulting in prenatal injuries

Baxter

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 7, 2025

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “[T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.

Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15

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

Gardels v. Murphy

377 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1974

We believe that Henkel is entitled to immunity. … We do not have before us the question of Murphy’s actions as an advanceman on a clearly partisan campaign trip.

Peters v. Herrin Community School District No. 4

401 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2010

In the instant case, plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3 — 102(a) for the School District to protect Gene Peters. … The complaint alleged that the court was in a dangerous condition because it contained trenches that were clearly visible, that the defendant knew or should have known of this condition and that it would cause injury, and

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

We believe that section 5–101 immunizes only a local public entity that has not established a fire department or rescue service, or has not instituted a system for otherwise providing fire or rescue services. … Although the complaint may establish that the City employees performed their duties incompetently, it fails to establish that they owed decedent a special duty.

Edmondson v. Simon

87 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 1980

From this they argue that, absent an explicit waiver of governmental immunity (not present in the ADEA), federal employees have no right to jury trial. … Though the issue is thus clearly a close one, it seems to the Court that the government and Judge Tamm’s dissenting opinion in Nakshian have the better of the argument.

Hernandez v. Kirksey

306 Ill. App. 3d 912 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1999

Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides in pertinent part: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service … City of Chicago, 238 Ill.App.3d 639, 642 , 179 Ill.Dec. 441 , 606 N.E.2d 273 (1992) ("reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented.")

Lang v. City of Round Lake Park

87 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 2000

Even if probable cause did not exist, the arresting officer is immune from suit if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed … Based on the undisputed evidence, Gliniewicz and Hoyne had probable cause to arrest the Langs or are at least entitled to qualified immunity in connection with the arrest.

Albert v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago

2014 IL App (1st) 140532 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 27, 2015

Confusion as to whether the special duty exception can establish a cause of action despite immunities under the Tort Immunity Act is demonstrated by the complicated procedural history of this case and plaintiff … Section 4-102’s complete immunity in this context is well established. - 16 - ¶ 72 Affirmed.

Ostergren v. Forest Preserve District

118 Ill. App. 3d 319 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 19, 1983

Immunity is granted in the former subcategory. … The new statute was held to be clearly within the police power of the State and not violative of constitutional guarantees. Perozzi v. Ganiere (1935), 149 Or. 330 , 40 P.2d 1009 .

1 v. Board of Education of Lake Forest High School District 115

2024 IL App (2d) 230173 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 30, 2024

For instance, it also immunizes public entities from defamation claims. See 745 ILCS 10/2- 107 (West 2022) (granting immunity “for injury caused by any action of its employees that is libelous or slanderous”). … At this stage in the litigation, we must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint and clearly established by the exhibits to the complaint. Lake Point Tower Condominium Ass’n v.

Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda

622 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1985

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), so held with regard to the qualified immunity of municipal officers for their executive acts, and we cannot see why there should be a different … result here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

Wright Development Group v. Walsh

Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 21, 2010

This is clearly immunized activity. According to the uncontroverted deposition testimony of Walsh and Hrycko, the statements regarding the building issues at 6030 N. … This clearly applies to Walsh’s statement to a reporter made during a public forum concerning proposed legislation targeting condominium conversions.

Carroll v. Community Health Care Clinic, Inc.

2017 IL App (4th) 150847 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 2017

of immunity. … Additionally, the Lease Agreement provided the parties intended the Clinic to operate as a free medical clinic at all times. ¶ 32 Clearly, Dr.

G. H. Sternberg & Co. v. Bond

30 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1975

“AN ACT in relation to immunity for the State of Illinois” (Ill. Rev. … It was clearly the intent of plaintiff to enjoin any and all members of State government from taking action on the bond.

Falk v. Perez

973 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 12, 2013

Subsequent Seventh Circuit precedent clearly applies the Iqbal standard to Section 1983 Monell claims and disregards conclusory statements in the pleading. … Moving Defendants further argue that Defendant Lewis is immune because the Illinois Tort Immunity Act establishes immunity for damages arising from lawful entry onto land. (R. 49, Defs.’ Mem. at 8.)