Case law

G. H. Sternberg & Co. v. Cellini

16 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 5, 1973

against suit in the circuit court; and (c)- that the action was against an officer of the State in his official capacity, who, is therefore, also protected by sovereign immunity. … Indeed, it is established law that plaintiff must set forth those facts in detaü and with particularity which reveal plaintiff’s right to injunctive relief. (Daly v. Sheehan (1959), 22 Ill.App.2d 173 , 159 N.E.2d 506 .)

Township of Jubilee v. State

355 Ill. Dec. 668 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2011

In the court's view, the litigation "clearly affect[ed] property of the State" and the real party in interest was the State, not the individual State official named as the defendant. … The purpose of the statutory provisions establishing sovereign immunity is to protect the State from interference with the performance of governmental functions and to preserve and to protect State funds. People ex rel.

Arquero v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2025

Those facts are not material to the determination of whether qualified immunity applies because Defendants’ actions were reasonable and Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants violated any clearly established right. … Even Assuming Defendants Violated a Constitutional Right, that Right was not Clearly Established Turning to the second inquiry under the qualified immunity umbrella, Plaintiff

Carter v. Du Page County Sheriff

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1999

Plaintiff contends that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply because (1) the standard of care established in sections 11-205 and 11-907 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-205, 11-907 (West 1996)) supercedes … This argument is clearly erroneous for two reasons. First, and most disturbingly, the language counsel relies upon and quotes at length comes, not from the court's opinion, but from a special concurring opinion.

Datair Systems Corp. v. Starkey (In Re Datair Systems Corp.)

37 B.R. 690 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 1983

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY It is a well established principle of law that the United States is immune from suit except in those instances where it has specifically waived its sovereign immunity. … On the issue of sovereign immunity, a well established principle of law exempts the United States from suit unless it specifically waives sovereign immunity.

Zboralski v. Monahan

616 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2008

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, we ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id 4 The Fourth Amendment protects the right of persons not to be subjected to unreasonable searches or seizures.

Campbell v. White

207 Ill. App. 3d 541 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 23, 1991

As plaintiffs’ decedent and James Miller traveled eastward on Interstate 72, they did so at speeds well in excess of the established limit of fifty-five (55) miles per hour. … A police officer driving in hot pursuit of a violator of the law is clearly exercising a uniquely governmental function. In Robb v. Sutton (1986), 147 Ill.

Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

356 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 2005

The above regulations clearly establish that, contrary to the dissent’s statement that “[i]t is incorrect to say that a broken yellow line is a passing zone” (356 Ill. … this immunity.

Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital

396 Ill. App. 3d 729 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 2009

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8— 101(a) (West 2006)). … Schroeder’s alleged act of licking plaintiffs breast was clearly unrelated to her patient care.

Devogelear v. Dart

2025 IL App (1st) 231404 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2025

Devogelear failed to support his claims with adequate factual allegations, that his claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act, and that he failed to establish any constitutional violations. Mr. … Lisuzzo “may” report to the Standards Board any conduct the Sheriff’s Office deemed appropriate is clearly an exercise of discretion and a policy determination subject to section 2-201 immunity. Second, Mr.

Evans v. Tharp

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2024

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 … The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

L'Hote v. Village of Milford

212 Ill. 418 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1904

If the act must necessarily produce a result clearly and unquestionably forbidden by the constitution it cannot be upheld, whatever may be its form or profession.” … If the result of legislation is to establish dissimilarity in the powers of different cities in respect of the making of local improvements, the act would clearly be unconstitutional if its operation be restricted to certain

Galligan v. HONORABLE HAROLD WASHINGTON

163 Ill. App. 3d 701 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1987

The memorandum later argued that “defendants here are immune from liability in damages.” … Moreover, any immunity which might be relied upon is qualified and may be destroyed by a showing of malice or a lack of reasonable belief on the part of defendants. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 85, par. 2—208.)

Wright

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Brown should be protected by qualified immunity. [57] at 7-10. … Defendants are correct that qualified immunity can be decided on a motion to dismiss and that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of court on qualified immunity grounds.” Sabo v.

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

33 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2014

Carlson, 826 F.2d 647, 650 (7th Cir.1987) (“[W]hen considering the qualified immunity issue on a motion for summary judgment, a district court should consider all of the undisputed evidence in the record, read in the light … The plain language indicates that Section 1610(g) is not a separate basis of attachment, but rather qualifies the previous subsections.

Yonikus v. Industrial Commission

228 Ill. App. 3d 333 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 1992

Irrespective of the wisdom of the State’s decision to assert the doctrine of sovereign immunity, it is a common law principle of unquestioned validity and an “established principle of jurisprudence” that the sovereign cannot … Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that a distinction in liability may rationally be drawn between those public entities which enjoy sovereign immunity and those which do not.

Purdle

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Count 1 Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on Count 1 because going on a hunger strike is not a clearly established protected activity under

People v. Carreon

162 Ill. App. 3d 990 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 13, 1987

Shortly thereafter, Carreon also exited the establishment and went over to the blue car, asked the victims for a ride, and yelled to Amaya to join him. … Thus a witness, knowing that his own guilt is detected, may seek to shield himself from punishment by purchasing immunity or leniency by falsely accusing others and procuring their conviction.

Better Government Association v. Illinois High School Ass'n

2017 IL 121124 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2018

-7- ¶ 32 We next address the BGA’s contention that an entity that qualifies as a “local public entity” under the Tort Immunity Act should also be considered … App. 3d 1065 (2005), the IHSA made several arguments in an effort to establish the operational control necessary to support its tort immunity.

Tosado v. Miller

293 Ill. App. 3d 544 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 1997

Section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act clearly provides that local governmental units and their employees are not subject to suit beyond a one-year period. … It is well-established in Illinois that if there are two statutory provisions, one general and the other particular, the particular provision must prevail.