Case law

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Regalado v. City of Chicago

40 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 1999

Finally, Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right possessed by Regalado. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Regalado must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v.

Woods v. Aldworth

561 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 1983

Aldworth does not contend that the constitutional rights at issue here were not clearly established during the period in question. Instead, relying on Procunier v. … When Procunier was decided, the standard for qualified immunity included both a subjective and an objective component.

Jasinski v. Glencoe Department of Public Safety

836 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 2011

In determining whether a public official is protected by qualified immunity, I consider “whether a constitutional right has been violated,” and “whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted.” … The defendants did not argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

Maes v. Folberg

504 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2007

Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, it is plaintiffs burden to establish that her constitutional right was clearly established. Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520, 527 (7th Cir.2007) (internal citations omitted). … by qualified immunity.

TinleySparks, Inc. v. Village of Tinley Park

181 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 2015

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the - challenged conduct.” … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the actions described above “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Gonzalez v. Tilmer

775 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

O’Quinn responds to Gonzalez’s extended detention claim by invoking a qualified immunity defense. … Under the qualified immunity standard established in Harlow v.

Hebein Ex Rel. Berman v. Young

37 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 1998

Qualified immunity does not apply. … Because defendants do not raise an issue as to clearly established law, qualified immunity as to this claim need not be further considered at this time.

Bills Ex Rel. Bills v. Homer Consolidated School District Number 33-C

967 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 1997

Under the qualified immunity doctrine “[g]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that: (1) the alleged conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the violation

McGee v. Snyder See also Supplemental Opinion Upon Denial of Rehearing - filed Nov. 7, 2001

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants' conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Johnson v. Root

812 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 2011

It may be that with further development of a proper record, Root may establish that he is entitled to absolute immunity. … Root does not seek qualified immunity at this time.

Rubacha Ex Rel. Rubacha v. Coler

607 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 1985

Qualified Immunity As an additional ground for dismissal, defendants argue they are shielded by qualified executive immunity. They cite Davis v. … . -, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3021 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) for the proposition that damages may not be recovered from an official with qualified immunity unless the right the official allegedly violated was “clearly established at

Taylor v. Kveton

684 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1988

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, even if they used excessive force, they have qualified immunity from liability. … The principle behind qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said

DeMont v. Bebber

871 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 22, 2012

immunity from liability under § 1983 because his alleged conduct did not violate DeMont’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity shields “government actors from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Lester v. Brown

889 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1995

Qualified immunity will apply if “a reasonable officer could have believed that [the action taken was] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the infor mation the officers possessed.” Anderson v. … Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a particular right was both (1) violated and (2) clearly established at the relevant time, and the failure to sustain the burden on either prong will lead to the imposition of qualified

Fink v. Gonzalez

911 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 1996

Fink was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. … In general terms, it is well understood that qualified immunity protects gov- *335 emment officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional rights of

Grundy v. Lincoln Park Zoo

957 N.E.2d 441 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 1, 2011

However, in an appeal considering certified questions, Talandis does not apply directly, because ruling in favor of the appellant who establishes a prima facie case would entail not ordering a case- specific … As we indicated above, the supreme court has rather clearly indicated that a movable, nonaffixed item may constitute a “condition” of real property under section 3-106.

Wilson Ex Rel. Wilson v. Formigoni

832 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 1993

Our analysis of the qualified immunity question begins with Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity Of course, the Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars the Plaintiffs procedural due process claim. We disagree.

Wright-Young v. Chicago State University

2019 IL App (1st) 181073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 8, 2020

. ¶ 77 To prove discretionary immunity, a defendant “must establish that the act or omission giving rise to the injuries was both a determination of policy and an exercise of discretion.” … Qualified Immunity ¶ 82 In the trial court, the Board also asserted qualified immunities—under sections 3-108 (745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2012) (providing qualified immunity for the supervision of an activity

Fields v. City of Chicago

805 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2011

“A prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill, 627 F.3d at 606 . … Under Buckley IV, Wharrie’s procurement of false statements from Hawkins did not violate Fields’s clearly established constitutional rights, thus entitling Wharrie to qualified immunity for that aspect of Fields’s claims.