Case law

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.

Holmes v. City of Chicago

63 F. Supp. 3d 806 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2014

In short, qualified immunity works as a shield if a reasonable officer could have believed Plaintiffs arrest to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information that Herrera, Matich, 'and Coffee possessed … Callahan, two questions are pertinent to the defense of qualified immunity: whether the alleged facts show that the state actor violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Fittanto v. Children's Advocacy Center

836 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1993

defendant’s facts supporting qualified immunity). … In addressing defendants' qualified immunity argument, the Seventh Circuit articulated the standard as one protecting officials for all but violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Galarza v. Monti

327 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2018

For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right. … Therefore, the plaintiff can only overcome a claim of qualified immunity if it was clearly established at the time of the arrest that the plaintiff had a right to be free from a First Amendment retaliatory arrest even where

Heard v. City of N.Y.

319 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 2018

, the officer may still be shielded from liability for false arrest under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such as arrests, "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Matthews v. Peters

818 F. Supp. 224 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1993

qualified immunity doctrine requires. … It is of course true that the standard for qualified immunity turns on whether the legal rules that the official is alleged to have violated were “clearly established” when the official acted (Harlow v.

Levin v. Madigan

41 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is designed to allow government officials to avoid the burdens of litigation when the law is not clearly established, and relieving officials of those burdens in turn confers a benefit on society as a whole … Although this Court previously expressed its doubt that the qualified immunity defense applies at all to procedural uncertainty, that is, uncertainty over whether a § 1983 cause of action for a clearly established substantive

Doe v. Thomas

604 F. Supp. 1508 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1985

Defendants have established, as a matter of law, both prongs of the qualified immunity test. First, taking someone into custody is clearly within the scope of a police officer’s authority. … The second question of the Harlow qualified immunity test, requiring a demonstration of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, is answered in the negative.

Thomas v. Walton

461 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

In general, of course, a government officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was constitutional in light of the clearly established law and the information … All of the constitutional violations alleged by Thomas implicate clearly established constitutional rights, making summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity improper. *798 As discussed, Count 2, the remaining portion

Walker v. Benjamin

100 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2000

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. … Benjamin’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights and she is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Hudson v. Burke

617 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 1985

Alderman Burke’s Qualified Immunity Does Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims For Damages. … The standard for qualified immunity was set down in Harlow v.

Pauli v. Farmington Cent. Com. School Dist. 265

841 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 12, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the basis' that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. … This Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim.

Black Lives Matter v. Town of Clarkstown

354 F. Supp. 3d 313 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 14, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants Sullivan and Cole-Hatchard each assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, "qualified immunity shields ... officials from suit 'unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.' " Terebesi v

McDade v. City of Chicago

264 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 2003

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded, Lanigan, 110 F.3d at 471 ; the defendants did so in their answer.

Gamboa v. Washington

716 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 1989

If those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly-established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The question of qualified immunity here is a close one, but we do not believe that the present record clearly establishes that the district manager position reasonably could be viewed as a confidential position— or at least

Crosetto v. Heffernan

810 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 1992

“[A] court considering a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity has before it a pure question of law: whether, based on all the undisputed facts, the defendant’s conduct violated any clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, where the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Petit v. City of Chicago

766 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 16, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Watts v. Ramos

948 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1996

Qualified immunity will shield a defendant’s actions unless the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a sufficiently particularized sense at the time of the actions at issue.” … be clearly established.

Wilson v. Schomig

863 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their official actions unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable person would have known. Anderson v.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2020

“The qualified immunity defense is designed to protect government agents ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”).