Case law

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

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.

Somoye v. Klein

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 8, 2004

In interpreting a statute, it is never proper for a court to depart from plain language by reading into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions which conflict with the clearly expressed legislative intent. … The Appellate Court, First District, has recently commented on the definition of "emergency" as that term is used in section 25 of the Act: "[T]here are a variety of situations which may qualify as emergency care under the

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. City of Evanston

89 Ill. App. 3d 701 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1980

Rather, this action was clearly brought and tried under Federal statute for the alleged violation of Krishna’s constitutional rights by Evanston. … Ct. 2689 . 6 Stringer makes reference to the “closely related doctrine” of qualified immunity which, at the time of that decision, was arguably available to a municipal defendant as an alternate basis with which to avoid

Carter v. O'SULLIVAN

924 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 1996

Irrespective of whether the current telephone system at W.I.C.C. passes constitution .muster, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … State officials performing discretionary acts enjoy qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known at the time the

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 . . .”

Munoz v. Bradbury

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 12, 2024

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware, that official is immune from suit. Pearson v. … A court may conclude that qualified immunity applies without reaching the underlying question of whether a right was violated if that right was not clearly established at the time of its alleged violation. Id. at 242.

Phillips v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 2021

qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or

Sato v. Plunkett

154 F.R.D. 189 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 1994

himself voided the defense of judicial immunity”. … Because Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes a system of notice pleading, I cannot (yet) exclude the possibility that plaintiffs can establish a claim.

Lamon

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In the end, that distinction does not matter because Plaintiff has met the second requirement of qualified immunity analysis — that the constitutional right be clearly established.

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.

People v. Clark

125 Ill. App. 3d 608 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 1984

These photographs, included in the record on appeal, establish that the detention facility’s intercom system was clearly visible from the defendant’s cell. … While the defendant stated he was not told about the monitoring system, photographs included in the record on appeal establish that the jail intercom system was clearly visible to him.

Chapman v. US MARSHAL FOR NORTHERN DIST. OF ILL.

584 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 3, 2008

immunity, and the statute of limitations. … immunity, and the statute of limitations. [5] (R. 44, Mot. to Dismiss.)

The PEOPLE v. Williams

22 Ill. 2d 498 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1961

The defendant first contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … At the trial Jacqueline was called as a witness for the prosecution, after receiving assurance of immunity by the Federal and State authorities.

Stewart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 1, 2026

What he’s otherwise alleged, and what the footage clearly establishes, is a mere general risk of violence. … The two-step qualified immunity inquiry asks “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time

McLean v. Rochford

404 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 17, 1975

The questions were narrowly and specifically drawn, related to his duties 4 as a police officer and were clearly relevant to the subject matter of the investigation. … He may have meant that the State’s Attorney’s Office .was prepared to seek judicial immunity for plaintiff pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, art. 106 (1973), or he may have meant that the immunity would arise by operation

Hudson v. Ralph Lauren Corp.

385 F. Supp. 3d 639 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · May 1, 2019

" or that it qualify "even if it lacks that capacity"). … Aug. 7, 2012) (requiring the plaintiff to include details of the device at the pleading stage would make defendants "virtually immune to TCPA claims, which clearly is not what was intended by Congress in creating the TCPA

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.

Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority

229 Ill. App. 3d 793 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 1992

The Consumer Fraud Act clearly makes an unusual distinction that the Act only applies to domestic and foreign corporations. … Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by any person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom

Vasallo

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity Next, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate the violation of any clearly established … Because Plaintiff has not identified a violation of a clearly established right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.