Case law

Holum v. Morgan

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

Both, however, had clearly expressed their desire (while still competent) that they not be kept alive artificially or allowed to linger. … The Act sets forth three qualifying conditions, which trigger the surrogate’s authority to act when one or more of the conditions is certified to exist by the attending physician and at least one other qualified physician

Eberhardt v. Village of Tinley Park

2024 IL App (1st) 230139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 24, 2024

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-96 (1984) (rejecting the contention that a violation of a related state statute or regulation necessarily renders the state actor’s actions unreasonable for purposes of determining qualified immunity … ¶ 66 “Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws’ by any person acting ‘under color of any statute, ordinance

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.

Black v. McGuffage

209 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2002

Clearly the Court was not practicing a deferential analysis. Likewise, in Moore v. … We find that the County Clerk’s are not immunized by the Eleventh Amendment.

Luss v. Village of Forest Park

377 Ill. App. 3d 318 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2007

(West 2006)) (Tort Immunity Act) governs the question of liability. … There is no dispute that the Village of Forest Park and Officer Baker qualify as “a local public entity” and “a public employee,” respectively, within the meaning of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/4 — 105 (West 2006))

Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Company, Inc.

Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2008

Pursuant to the agreement, Midwest was responsible for “the performance of all labor for the Joint Venture, including payroll, payroll taxes, fringes and other employee expenses, including, but not limited to, the establishment … The defendants, therefore, have not shown clearly that they are entitled to the protection of the Act’s exclusive remedy provision.

Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge

Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2008

Governmental entities bear the burden of establishing immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 370 (2003). … This court held that the immunity provisions could not be harmonized because they both clearly applied to the plaintiff’s allegations. Moore, 219 Ill. 2d at 487.

Hampton v. City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois

339 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 1972

It is now well established that an action for damages will not lie against a municipal corporation on these jurisdictional allegations. Monroe v. … This reasoning is nearly as well established in Anglo-American law as judicial immunity itself . . .”

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

Robinson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 6, 2026

“To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time … This argument also fails because it has clearly been established that the Defendants treated Robinson’s injury.

Hitzke v. Village of Mundelein

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because: (a) it was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injury … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”

People v. Bernstein

155 Ill. App. 3d 445 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1987

However, the tax levied there is clearly different than the tax imposed in the present case. … The recordkeeping requirement is part of a regulatory scheme established by the Department of Revenue and adequately fulfills the regulation requirement for the required-records doctrine.

United States Labor Party v. Rochford

416 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 31, 1975

Furthermore, he is entitled to qualified immunity which has not been overcome by any pleading or affidavit. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … This is clearly the overly broad type of regulation which was held to be unconstitutional in Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 , 68 S.Ct. 1148 , 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948).

Urban v. Village of Inverness

176 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 1988

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … Clearly, the Village was under no duty to repair this damaged, crushed drain tile or to prevent any flooding which it caused.

Sharp v. Community High School District 155

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2023

To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Mrs. Sharp must point to closely analogous cases that establish Officer Zenaty actions violated clearly established law. Mrs. Sharp relies on Terry v. … Officer Zenaty asserts qualified immunity, arguing that it is was not clearly established that questioning Mrs.

Hull v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services

356 Ill. App. 3d 300 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2005

Heymach’s report nor his curriculum vitae indicated that he has performed a radiological procedure such as that involved in this case, he failed to establish that he was qualified by experience or demonstrated competence … Heymach established that he was qualified by experience or demonstrated competence in the subject of the case. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 622(a)(1)(iii) (West 2002); Apa, 288 III.

Kirk v. Arnold

2020 IL App (1st) 190782 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 2020

Instead, the State Registrar contended that the plaintiffs were barred by principles of sovereign immunity from assessing fees and costs against the State Registrar. … Initially, the trial court found that the plaintiffs’ fee- petition claim was not barred by principles of sovereign immunity.

Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows

372 Ill. App. 3d 60 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 2007

Timeliness of the Action The City argues that this action was untimely because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity … The plaintiffs’ action, therefore, is not barred by the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year statute of limitations.

United States v. Professional Sales Corp. (In Re Professional Sales Corp.)

56 B.R. 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 1985

Generally, a district court must accept a bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Neis, 723 F.2d 584, 588 (7th Cir.1983). … No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333, this “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies only to "core” proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2).

McKay

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2025

“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 person … “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Hanson v.