Case law

Stephens v. Collins

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2025

grant of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hernandez v.

Moore v. Floro

614 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 1985

Since neither of these acts is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Floro is clearly not entitled to the absolute prosecutorial immunity that he demands. Imbler v. … Furthermore, even if there were such a duty, Floro would be shielded from liability by qualified immunity because his alleged misconduct was nothing more than a discretionary act which did not violate clearly established

Beiles v. City of Chicago

987 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2013

Defendants argue in the alternative that Traynor is entitled to qualified immunity from Beiles's false arrest claim. (R. 20, Defs.’ Mot. J. at 5.) … Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I, the Court need not determine if qualified immunity is appropriate.

Moon v. Smith

213 Ill. Dec. 107 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 1995

Clearly, our legislature intended to immunize some conduct by passing this legislation. At common law, landowners owe no duty to remove conditions created naturally. (See Graf v. St. … However, as discussed above, the language of subsection (I) indicates that the legislature also clearly intended to provide landowners and occupiers with immunity for counts or actions sounding in negligence, such as the

Jones

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2026

Plaintiff responds that it was clearly established that excessive force violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and qualified immunity does not apply. [13] at 6-7. … of violation of clearly established law.”)

Madden v. Kuehn

56 Ill. App. 3d 997 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 9, 1978

Kuehn based their motion on the ground that the State and its officials are immune from suits. … The second rule is the doctrine of “Public Officials Immunity,” which provides that State and other public officials are immune from liability for acts falling within their official discretion. E.g., Mora v.

Monat v. County of Cook

322 Ill. App. 3d 499 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 2001

The court grounded its judgment on findings that Monat would need to violate the forest preserve code to take his horses into the nearby forest and that the “general consensus of the neighborhood is clearly against the idea … Defendants argue that Monat’s motion to vacate the trial court’s order did not toll the time for appeal because it did not qualify as a proper posttrial motion.

Lorenz v. Pledge

2014 IL App (3d) 130137 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 7, 2014

The evidence at trial clearly establishes that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. … Regardless, this deputy did what any reasonably qualified and conscientious police officer would have done faced with the same situation.

Brokaw v. Boeing Co.

137 F. Supp. 3d 1082 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 2015

Presidential Airways, Inc., 460 F.Supp.2d 1315, 1330 (M.D.Fla.2006) (“Unless they qualify as employees or agents of the Government, private contractors may not bootstrap the Government’s sovereign immunity.”). … immunity.

Doe v. Scott

310 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 1970

No state criminal action is pending, and this case is therefore clearly distinguishable from Babbitz v. McCann, supra, wherein both temporary and permanent injunctions were denied the plaintiff - physician. … A criminal abortion statute of the District of Columbia was also recently invalidated as applied to qualified, licensed physicians. United States v. Vuitch, 305 *690 F.Supp. 1032 (D.D.C.1969).

Kiersch v. Ogena

230 Ill. App. 3d 57 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1992

The Court of Claims Act established the Court of Claims and endowed it with the exclusive jurisdiction to hear certain matters, including the following: ‘(d) All claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort … Stat. 1989, ch. 127, par. 1302(d)) speaks of findings made by “the court or jury,” thereby clearly indicating that the legislature contemplated that actions against State employees for damages, for which the State would be

Adames v. Sheahan

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 29, 2007

The manual clearly reads that removing the magazine does not clear a loaded chamber. … Section 7903(5)(A) defines a “qualified civil liability action” as “a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. United States Department of the Navy

722 F. Supp. 1565 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 1989

In the Court’s view, the Control Act obligated the government to compensate people who suffered injury that arose when a government employee violated duties established by law, even state law, but the government remained … Congress clearly planned to coerce polluters by providing that injunctions and sanctions were among the federal and state enforcement mechanisms to which all polluters, including federal facilities, must submit.

Pursley v. City of Rockford

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2024

The Court granted summary judgment on this issue because Pursley responded only to the Rockford defendants’ qualified immunity arguments and thus failed to meet his burden to show that Gunnell violated a clearly established … Pursley said there was no argument about whether rights were clearly established; the Rockford defendants didn’t argue that the rights at issue weren’t clearly established, but the ISP defendants did.

Doe v. Lawrence Hall Youth Services

966 N.E.2d 52 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 26, 2012

furtherance of the business interests of Defendant Lawrence Hall Youth Services.” ¶ 11 Regarding the applicability of the Illinois School Code to the case at bar, the court found: “The evidence clearly … A cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery. Canel v.

Cornelius

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2026

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Aug. 5, 2022) (denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because facts viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff suggested violation of clearly established constitutional right).

Jackson v. Kane County

468 Ill. Dec. 10 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2021

The trial court found that, when read together, sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act) (745 ILCS 10/2-109, 2-201) (West 2020)) immunize a public entity from … ¶ 17 We explained that, in the context of police pursuits, allegations of willful and wanton conduct may fall into one of three categories: “Some situations will be so benign as to clearly be, as a matter of

Hawk v. Perillo

642 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1986

Indeed, as the complaint clearly states, the Police Defendants did not arrive on the scene until after the attack occurred. … These private attacks were clearly viewed as the type of evil the Act of 1866 was designed to prevent.

See v. Illinois Gaming Board

2020 IL App (1st) 192200 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 27, 2020

, the state has waived sovereign immunity, or the suit is for prospective injunctive relief. … In Higgins, the Seventh Circuit noted the well-established rule that a state may waive its eleventh amendment immunity from being sued in federal court, and then, of course, the federal court can consider the claim.

King v. City of Chicago

66 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1978

In lightof the record before us, it does not appear clearly evident that the policemen were in the execution or enforcement of any law. … We hold, accordingly, that the immunity provisions of section 2 — 202 are inapplicable. Therefore, the City of Chicago is liable for plaintiff’s injuries.