Case law

Alden Nursing Center-Lakeland, Inc. v. Patla

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 2000

The controller testified that each listed patient qualified for public aid from the Department. He knew this by the coding used on the accounts. … The doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, is not about fairness.

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.

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.

Melvin v. City of West Frankfort

93 Ill. App. 3d 425 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 23, 1981

When enacted in 1967 the portion of section 10 — 2.1—6 here under attack must necessarily have been intended to insure quite literally that able-bodied and fully qualified persons were to be employed by municipal police and … Stat., 1979 Supp., ch. 68, par. 1 — 102(A)) and it expressly serves to implement the guarantees established by §19 of article I of the 1970 Constitution (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1979 Supp., ch. 68, pars. 1 — 102(C).)

Rosiles v. Village of Round Lake Beach

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2024

As for prone pressure, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the force employed was reasonable, but that even if it was not, their actions were not clearly unlawful. … The doctrine of 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

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.

A.R. v. Chicago Board of Education

311 Ill. App. 3d 29 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1999

Section 4 — 102 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 or, if police protection … The conduct complained of in the present action clearly falls within the ambit of disciplinary conduct contemplated under section 34 — 84a.

People v. Boyle

312 Ill. 586 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1924

It has long been established by all the courts of this country that a witness cannot be required to criminate himself and thereby bring punishment upon him by reason of his disclosures not voluntarily made. … The words, “in either of the four preceding sections,” clearly specify the circumstances under which the court may enter an order granting immunity, and not the limit of the immunity when once granted.

Olympia Express, Inc. v. Linee Aeree Italiane S.P.A.

437 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 14, 2006

In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that immunities based on foreign state status, “like other status-based immunities, such as the qualified immunity accorded to a state actor, ... … Accordingly, even assuming an immediate appeal might materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation, Alitalia has failed to establish the basis for an interlocutory appeal.

Board of Education of the City of Peoria, School District No. 150 v. Sanders

150 Ill. App. 3d 755 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 1986

Senn Park and City of Springfield establish that the plaintiff’s request was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and thus was properly brought in the circuit court. … Section 22 — 19 clearly recites the powers which the legislature intended the ISBE to have. (Aurora East Public School District No. 131 v. Cronin (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 313, 328 .)

Davila v. Gutierrez

330 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 2018

"The doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims fall within an applicable waiver." See Makarova v. … Nevertheless, "dismissal of a pro se complaint is [ ] appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements." Rahman v.

Thomas v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 18, 2025

The Court agrees that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … A court’s analysis of qualified immunity depends on “two central questions: whether the officers violated [the plaintiff]’s constitutional rights and whether the rights they allegedly violated were clearly established

Razavi v. School of the Art Institute of Chicago

2018 IL App (1st) 171409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2019

To establish defamation, plaintiff must show that defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff and published the statement to a third party, causing damage. Anderson v. Beach, 386 Ill. … Where only a qualified privilege is granted, the person making the statment is immune from liability unless some element, such as malice, is present.

Gaston v. City of Danville

393 Ill. App. 3d 591 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 17, 2009

They clearly were not there for any purpose related to the intended purpose of the stairway, i.e., allowing parking patrons access to the garage or the street. … Township of Wayne, 183 Ill. 2d 520, 524 , 702 N.E.2d 535, 537 (1998)), defendant also qualifies as a permitted user of the stairwell. III.

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.)

Carmody v. Thompson

34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1042 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 2012

Sovereign Immunity ¶ 20 “The Illinois Constitution of 1970 abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity ‘[e]xcept as the General Assembly may provide by law.’ ” PHL, Inc. v. … Under this authority, the legislature created the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 5/0.01 to 1.5 (West 2010)). PHL, 216 Ill. 2d at 260, 836 N.E.2d at 356.

Nichol v. Stass

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1998

employment status for sovereign immunity purposes. … Clearly, the duty to comply with Department of Children and Family Service rules and regulations would not exist outside of the relationship between the State and the foster parents.

Kozik v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

2025 IL App (1st) 242219 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 9, 2025

Each statute stands “in its own sphere” and the immunities provided by the Vehicle Code and the Tort Immunity Act serve different purposes (internal quotation marks omitted)); Young v. Forgas, 308 Ill. … ¶ 78 Here, the statute and the rule clearly serve very different purposes.

Harinak v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1998

Under these standards, the fire marshal's conduct described in the complaint clearly constituted an exercise of discretion. … The special duty exception to sovereign immunity is a well-established doctrine that has been consistently recognized by our court and by the appellate court in the decades following promulgation of the Tort Immunity Act

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].