Case law

Hopkinson v. Chicago Transit Authority

211 Ill. App. 3d 825 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 1991

subsequent legislation abolishing the immunity. … We find no abuse of discretion in qualifying O’Mahoney as an expert in rapid transit security.

JOHNNY TAYLOR v. CONNOR MARCHETTI, et al.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 15, 2026

The defense of “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” … based upon qualified immunity.

People Ex Rel. Skinner v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.

135 Ill. App. 3d 765 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 1985

It is established that the State and its agencies, when in pursuit of public rights, are not barred by a statute of limitations unless specifically included within the terms of the statute. … A statute is presumed valid and the burden of establishing unconstitutionality rests upon the challenger. (Sayles v. Thompson (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 122, 124-25 , 457 N.E.2d 440 ; Scott v.

EL v. Evans

694 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 2010

immunity.”) … In addition, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not apply to shield Defendants from liability, in accordance with the Seventh Circuit’s finding in Roger, which parallels the facts of the instant case.

Craft v. Robert Burns

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2024

Additionally, prosecutors acting in investigative capacity may claim qualified immunity, which covers conduct that does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would … Finally, Plaintiff contends that he has established both that a constitutional right was violated, and that the right was clearly established, so qualified immunity does not apply.

Reilly

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … To determine whether qualified immunity “shields” a government official, courts analyze two elements: (1) whether the official ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right”; and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established

Bridgman v. Sanitary District of Decatur

164 Ill. App. 3d 287 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 1987

Section 3 provides in part: “The general purpose and intent of this Act is to establish a means of reviewing potential water conflicts before damage to any person is incurred and to establish a rule for mitigating water shortage … conflicts by: * * * (b) Establishing a ‘reasonable use’ rule for groundwater withdrawals.”

Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler

405 Ill. App. 3d 113 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2010

The court must grant the motion and dismiss the claim unless the nonmovant “has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized … Butler asserts that the trial court was therefore correct in holding that Hytel did not establish any defense to her motion to dismiss under the Act.

The City of Kankakee v. Department of Revenue

988 N.E.2d 723 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 2013

¶ 46 Original Jurisdiction ¶ 47 The circuit court held that even absent jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Law, “the decision of the Department is clearly subject … Thus, sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against the State in state court unless the legislature has waived the immunity. People ex rel. Manning v.

People v. Davis

458 Ill. Dec. 359 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2021

¶ 55 Applying the framework established by our supreme court in Healy v. … Davis to seek reimbursement for any qualified expenditure she made within the annual appropriation authorized under the office allowance statute. Rep.

Torres v. City of Chicago

218 Ill. App. 3d 89 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1991

Section 3 — 102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) sets forth the City’s duty to maintain its property: “[A] local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain … These cases are distinguishable from the case at bar in light of the fact that the plaintiff in each case was clearly not an intended or permitted user of the street.

Dear Ex Rel. Dear v. Rathje

391 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 17, 1975

Judicial immunity has long been firmly established in our judicial system. Every act performed by a judge in his judicial capacity is immune from damage suits by litigants. A litigant’s sole remedy is by way of appeal. … The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine. [Footnote omitted].

United States v. All Funds on Deposit With R.J. O'brien & Associates

982 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2013

They do not establish substantive or evidentiary requirements. … Prudential standing The government continues to argue that the claimants in this case lack prudential standing to proceed with their claims because “they cannot establish that they qualify as ‘owners’ of the defendant funds

Davis v. Gomez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

Qualified immunity attaches unless: (1) a government official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the unlawfulness of this conduct “was clearly established at the time.” … Focusing on the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, the law was clearly established during the relevant time that officials act with deliberate indifference when they react with a lack of concern to

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.

Sevilla v. United States

852 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2012

That is what occurred when Congress enacted the HCQIA, which accorded qualified immunity to reporting physicians and limited confidentiality to certain records. … Congress’ solution to that perceived problem was to give qualified immunity to physicians participating in the peer review process.

Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

368 F. Supp. 3d 741 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 2019

immunity is waived." 2 (Report at 10 *745 (quoting Robinson v. … Plaintiff also fails to allege that he was "otherwise qualified" to receive the benefit (i.e., methadone treatment) that he was denied. (Report at 34.)

Vilardo v. Barrington Community School District 220

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2010

"The well-established rule is that mere contentions, without argument or citation of authority, do not merit consideration on appeal." People v. Hood, 210 Ill. App. 3d 743, 746 (1991). … In this case, the trial court concluded that plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3--102(a) for defendant to protect plaintiff.

Marsh v. Astoria Lodge No. 112

27 Ill. 421 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1862

It establishes the fact of the existence of such a lodge, No. 112, but the plea goes further, and questions the right of the lodge to sue, in the name it has sued. … However just, and clearly established, is the defendant’s liability in this case, yet, as the suit is not brought by the parties entitled to sue as plaintiffs, we are compelled to reverse the judgment.

Fujimura v. Chicago Transit Authority

67 Ill. 2d 506 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1977

Classification of governmental entities based upon their functions and activities is clearly proper. The CTA was established to operate and maintain a mass transportation system in the Chicago metropolitan area. … This court has recently held that the immunity-waiver provision of section 9 — 103(b) of the Tort Immunity Act is inapplicable to the immunity created by sections 24 — 24 and 34 — 84a of the School Code (Ill. Rev.