Case law

Levin v. Madigan

41 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is designed to allow government officials to avoid the burdens of litigation when the law is not clearly established, and relieving officials of those burdens in turn confers a benefit on society as a whole … Although this Court previously expressed its doubt that the qualified immunity defense applies at all to procedural uncertainty, that is, uncertainty over whether a § 1983 cause of action for a clearly established substantive

Ellis v. Flannery

2021 IL App (1st) 201096 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2021

She argues that the circuit court ignored her motion for default judgment and erroneously dismissed her complaint based on judicial immunity, even though “defendant is clearly not protected under this doctrine … App. 3d 353, 355 (1995)). ¶ 12 Here, the orders defendant entered were clearly judicial acts, and neither of the two exceptions to judicial immunity are present.

Boothe v. Wheeling Police Officer Sherman

190 F. Supp. 3d 788 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … violated clearly established law.

Spiegel v. City of Chicago

920 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The test of qualified immunity for police officers is whether a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Wilson v. Schomig

863 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their official actions unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable person would have known. Anderson v.

Anton v. Sheriff of DuPage County, Ill.

47 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 1999

Qualified Immunity Kretovic and Zamora argue that even if Anton’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

Cardwell v. Rockford Memorial Hospital

136 Ill. 2d 271 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1990

The trial court found that the statutes cited by White and the hospital established a qualified immunity. … The immunity was qualified, according to the trial court, in that it was not applicable where a party’s conduct was willful or wanton.

Trout v. Frega

926 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the right allegedly violated was clearly established for purposes of denying an officer qualified immunity from a claim under § 1983. Sledd, 864 F.Supp. at 827 .

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Hobbs v. Cappelluti

899 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2012

Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 690-91 (7th Cir.2008) (a clearly established right is one where “there is a clearly analogous case establishing a right to be free from the specific conduct at issue or that the conduct is so egregious … was not a clearly established constitutional violation.

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