Case law

In Re CA

236 Ill. App. 3d 594 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 1992

It can cause susceptibility to multiple types of infections, infections that persons with a normal immune response would not be susceptible to." Dr. … Both, however, had clearly expressed their desire (while still competent) that they not be kept alive artificially or allowed to linger.

Unterschuetz v. City of Chicago

346 Ill. App. 3d 65 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 2004

Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2 — 109 (West 2000)). … under sections 2 — 109 and 2 — 201 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2 — 109, 2 — 201 (West 2000)).

Townsend v. Gaydosh

197 Ill. App. 3d 339 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1990

The fact defendant was employed as a highway maintenance man for DOT and operated State-owned equipment at the time of the accident was established by an affidavit accompanying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. … In Creamer, however, the fact pattern is decidedly different, since the Creamer defendants’ actions were clearly beyond what the State employer assigned them to do, while this defendant was clearly doing what his work assignment

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, Ltd. Partnership v. Chicago Board Options Exchange

2018 IL App (1st) 171316 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2018

With respect to Tait, Knabjian explained that he received a warning because “he didn’t provide the qualifying information that says each one is handled on a case-by-case basis so, essentially, [he] didn’t adhere … The defendant may meet its burden of proof either by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in its favor or by establishing the absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case

Esker v. Lutz

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 2021

He further claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a “clearly established” law (Id., pp. 17-18). … In establishing the second prong in the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was “clearly established”. Ashcroft v.

Lanphier v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 21, 2002

Once a borrowed employment relationship exists, both employers share immunity for tort damages for an employee's work-related injuries and the employee's exclusive remedy is under the Act. … The court determined that the purpose of defining "loaning employer" in the Workers' Compensation Act was to establish the secondary liability of the loaning employer and to relieve the employee from having to establish

Swanigan v. Trotter

645 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 4, 2009

violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As previously set forth, qualified immunity operates to shield officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Newell v. City of Elgin

34 Ill. App. 3d 719 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 6, 1976

In 1965 the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act was enacted (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 85, pars. 1 — 101 et seq.). It eliminated sovereign immunity except as therein specified. … That count clearly alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the individual officers and thereby against Hanover Park.

Johnson v. Halloran

Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2000

Having established defendants’ employment status, we must next consider whether and to what extent they are shielded by sovereign immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity was abolished by this court in Molitor v. … Such language does not indicate clearly the temporal reach of this Act.

Nixon v. United States

916 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 2013

When the putative beneficiary sued the Government for breach of contract, the court held that because Congress did not clearly indicate in FEGLIA that it intended to waive sovereign immunity by creating actionable duties, … Frerichs acknowledged that FEGLIA created “legal duties” on the part of the Government but concluded that the duties were not “actionable” because FEGLIA did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. Id.

Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc.

224 Ill. 2d 274 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2007

Plaintiffs claim that those employees were not maintenance mechanics and were not trained or qualified to perform the work they were attempting. … Accordingly, to establish liability, plaintiffs must establish more than the fact that Paul Melnuk made policy decisions and supervised subsidiary activities. Best-foods, 524 U.S. at 69 , 141 L. Ed. 2d at 61 , 118 S.

Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort

258 Ill. App. 3d 424 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 11, 1994

which the public have established for themselves, with dangerous ditches and pit-falls. … The city claims it has no duty because of the immunity granted it by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act): "[A] local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care

Mandziara v. Canulli

299 Ill. App. 3d 593 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 1998

Canulli clearly sought access for himself and Jursich by issuing a records subpoena. … We have said: “The statute clearly indicates the legislature intended to modify absolute common law witness immunity in order to provide a remedy of damages against persons who violate the act.” Renzi, 249 Ill.

Valentino v. Hilquist

337 Ill. App. 3d 461 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2003

Breach of Contract Defendant Board argues that the evidence failed to establish a breach of contract claim. … That is clearly not the case here. Plaintiffs complaint does not allege “criticisms”; it alleges battery.

McKay v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2024

Nevertheless, at the pleading stage, dismissal based on a qualified immunity defense is appropriate when the allegations in the complaint fail to state a violation of clearly established law. See Hanson v. … The qualified immunity analysis, however, distinguishes between whether the officials violated a clearly established right and whether that right was clearly established in the first place. See Holderman v.

Mendoza-Barrera

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 2026

right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … to also establish that the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the officers’ alleged misconduct.

Keglovitz v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2025

Last, the defendants argue that this case should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. (R. 16 at 12.) … Qualified immunity exists to protect public officials from suit unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Doxtator v. O'Brien, 39 F.4th 852, 863 (7th Cir. 2022).

People Ex Rel. Holland v. Bleigh Construction Co.

61 Ill. 2d 258 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1975

But the Court’s decisions have established that classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. … We consider next the privileges and immunities question. In Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 , 92 L. Ed. 1460 , 68 S.

Martinkovic Ex Rel. Martinkovic v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

669 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1987

Illinois, even while requiring immunization against communicable diseases, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, It 27-8.1, ch. … This dispute in turn calls into question whether the package insert clearly conveyed the dangers of the vaccination or alerted Bangash to those risks.

Campbell v. The Department of Personnel

989 N.E.2d 1198 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 2013

Sept. 8, 2008)) for the proposition the Secretary’s department of personnel was required to “establish and maintain lists of qualified applicants for positions covered by Jurisdiction B of the Code.” … When the Director establishes eligible lists on the basis of category ratings such as ‘superior’, ‘excellent’, ‘well- qualified’, and ‘qualified’, the veteran eligibles in each such category shall be