Case law

Ramsey v. Morrison

Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1997

Clearly, a central purpose of the workers' compensation system is to place the cost of employee injuries on the enterprise or the industry, and that purpose is accomplished, in part, by granting immunity to coemployees whose … As the court noted, `the third party's interest is that of any other cotortfeasor--to limit its liability to no more than its established fault.' [Citation.]

Lilly v. Marcal Rope & Rigging, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 14, 1997

immune from suit in tort by its employees. … Since the relative culpabilities of the multiple defendants were rarely so clearly delineated, indemnification was not really a satisfactory tool.

Bailey v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2010

The court refused to find, as a matter of law, that the defendant's establishment was a school as intended by section 24-24. … The church asserted that it was immune from liability under section 24-24 of the School Code, while the plaintiff argued that immunity under section 24-24 did not cover the operation of a day care facility operated by a

Rafti v. Department of Human Services

2020 IL App (2d) 190983 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 2020

You’ve demonstrated your ability to understand written information, understand spoken information, do research, present clearly, read and understand, write clearly. … However, evidence that Rafti was not hired for a work-study job does not establish the necessity for paralegal training.

Cox v. Calumet Public Schools District 132

180 F. Supp. 3d 556 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 18, 2016

Second, Cox clearly alleges that the breach of contract occurred when the School District fired him without cause, in violation of the provision stating that firing must be for cause. See Dkt. … Cox appropriately concedes in his Response that the School District is immune from defamation liability under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/2-107.

Rivera v. Garcia

401 Ill. App. 3d 602 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2010

Police in pursuit of a law violator may enjoy an immunity from liability or they may not be negligent at all. … Public employees are generally immune from liability for negligent acts or omissions by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act; however, this immunity does not extend to acts or omissions constituting

Wagner v. City of Chicago

254 Ill. App. 3d 842 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 1993

The City contends that plaintiff’s references to a failure to install traffic control devices clearly falls within the former section 3 — 104(a), which provides that a municipality is immune from liability for the failure … The parties argue whether section 3 — 104(a), which provides immunity for failure to initially provide a traffic device, or section 3 — 102(a), which establishes a duty to maintain the intersection, also imposes liability

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.

Mullins v. Evans

2021 IL App (1st) 191962 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Accordingly, plaintiffs claimed that sovereign immunity was not applicable and that the Ethics Act applied to defendants’ conduct. … Plaintiffs also claimed that the State Lawsuit Immunity Act did not bar their Whistleblower Act claims against the chief judge.

Anderson v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc.

317 Ill. App. 3d 1104 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 2000

Municipal defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment upon a claim of immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. (West 1998) (Act)). … Although in the case sub judice the record does not clearly indicate statistics noting the frequency of aircraft that deviate from the runway, the FAA requirement for airports to have an RSA concedes the foreseeability that

Struve v. Department of Conservation

14 Ill. App. 3d 1092 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 25, 1973

At first blush this appears to be a case which clearly repudiates the well established rule that the state is immune from suits prosecuted in courts of law or equity. … Our views regarding the question of severeign immunity as presented by this appeal coincide with those set forth in the case of Powers v. Telander, 129 Ill.App.2d 10 , 262 N.E.2d 342 .

Wilkey v. Wax

82 Ill. App. 2d 67 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 20, 1967

Respondent indubitably had grounds for divorce and the choice was clearly hers to seek one. … Knowledge of the purchaser may be established by the pendency of litigation (citing case).

Anderson v. City of Chicago

29 Ill. App. 3d 971 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 1975

Clearly, this is not merely a question of weighing the evidence. … Accordingly, the trial judge held that the immunity provisions of section 2 — 202 were inapplicable.

Jedliska v. Snow

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly … “A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’” Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 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

Long Grove Country Club Estates, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove

693 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 1988

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants assert that they are qualifiedly immune from damages liability arising from their actions. … Therefore, to the extent that these individual defendants are not entitled to absolute legislative immunity, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 4. Sovereign Immunity This court also holds that Ms.

United States Ex Rel. Womack v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR NORTHERN DIST. OF ILL.

348 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 1972

Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 , 74 S.Ct. 693 , 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954), definitively establishes this proposition in any event. … PUNISHMENT Relators next contend that as they have already been confined for more than fourteen months, further confinement is not coercive but clearly punitive.

Anderson v. Sutter

119 Ill. App. 3d 1070 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 1983

Starcevich appears to be an application of the rule established in Jones v. … Thus, though the complaint does not clearly allege when the injury arose, nor precisely how the injury was caused, it is apparent that plaintiffs do not allege that the cause of the injury was the plan or design of the dam

In re Womack

333 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1971

The immunity order in issue was therefore as broad as the rights of these witnesses against self-incrimination, and the order clearly meets the standards of Counselman v. … It is beyond question that a grand jury need not establish probable cause merely to subpoena and question witnesses. In re Dionisio, supra, at 281.

Village of Northbrook v. Cannon

61 Ill. App. 3d 315 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 12, 1978

Sections 16.1 (p) and (q) clearly establish two categories of persons to whom responsibility for animal nuisances will attach, “harborers” and “owners,” and define each. … It is possible that defendant was confused as to the applicability of stare decises to render him immune from village enforcement efforts.