Case law

Chan v. City of Chicago

916 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability if their conduct did not violate “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … It is the plaintiffs burden to demonstrate the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Id.

Knox v. McGinnis

783 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. … restraints (such a prayer for relief states an official-capacity rather than an individual-capacity claim, so that qualified immunity does not apply).

McCall-Bey v. Franzen

585 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 1984

If the law was clearly established; the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Thus it appears that the law was clearly established on the date of the Committee’s and Lane’s actions.

Perry v. Elrod

436 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1977

good faith immunity. … with disregarding the plaintiff’s established rights.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

652 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1986

That alone confers the Harlow -dictated qualified immunity on Mathis. … Rather the question is whether it was clearly established when Mathis acted that they were not “confidential” employees. It was not so established then, and that independently shields Mathis with qualified immunity.

Segreti v. Gillen

259 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2003

The constitutional right to free speech was clearly established at the time of this incident. … Therefore, because plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, and that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation, defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I based on qualified immunity is

Gannon v. Daley

561 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.... … Harlow seems to hold that the question of qualified immunity will always be a question of law: the judge will determine whether defendants violated clearly established rights.

Brugger v. Joseph Academy, Inc.

202 Ill. 2d 435 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2002

Alternatively, the academy argues that it qualifies for immunity under the Carroll criteria. … It contends that, based on our misconstruction of this term, Carroll established an overly restrictive test for determining whether an entity qualifies for tort immunity under the Act.

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

Smallwood v. Renfro

708 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1989

Coupland too is entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … In any case, it will be recalled the test here is one of a “clearly established" right.

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.

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”).

Levin v. Madigan

697 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2010

Once a qualified immunity defense is asserted, the plaintiff faces the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” … Because the availability of Plaintiffs equal protection claim for age discrimination is not clearly established, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count IV.

Alfredia Edwards as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Nathaniel Edwards v. Officer John Doe

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity Analysis Cater raises an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Dkt. 139, at 8. … Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff “must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear

Bonds v. Fizer

713 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2010

If an officer can establish “arguable probable cause” to arrest the plaintiff, then he is entitled to qualified immunity. Williams, 269 F.3d at 781 . … “A plaintiff seeking to defeat the assertion of qualified immunity must establish that the law concerning the plaintiffs asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” Kog er v.

Tenorio v. Harris

370 F. Supp. 3d 863 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

Qualified Immunity In arguing for summary judgment, the Defendants did not rely on qualified immunity. … Police officers "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time."

Malec v. Sanford

191 F.R.D. 581 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 2000

The Board-defendants now renew their request for legislative and qualified immunity. … In fact, the defendants wrongly place the burden on Malee to establish that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Board of Education of Consolidated School District 230

18 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1998

The individual defendants also argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Because that would violate clearly established law, defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. See Stoneking, 882 F.2d at 720 .

Masters v. Murphy

2020 IL App (1st) 190908 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2020

Therein, Murphy argued that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) because she had either absolute or qualified immunity under sections 2-204 and 2-210 of the Tort Immunity … Murphy was clearly within the time and space confines of her position as a correctional officer.

Mohil v. Glick

842 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2012

Immunity But Mohils have cleared that state actor hurdle only to fall at the next: the need to avoid foundering on the shoals of immunity — not just qualified immunity, but absolute immunity. 8 This opinion turns then to … Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or *1078 shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right” and also “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”