Case law

AMERICAN FED. OF STATE, COUNTY v. Ryan

332 Ill. App. 3d 866 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 10, 2002

Planning Act The Center qualifies as a "hospital" under the Planning Board's regulations (77 Ill. … The Planning Act does not clearly preempt the plaintiff's private right of action.

Hwang v. Board of Education for Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 2025

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Count I. (Dkt. 16 at 9-11.) … Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Brown

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 14, 2026

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Bonert v. Village of Schiller Park

322 Ill. App. 3d 557 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2001

One of the photographs clearly shows that the only pool of water in an indentation was located where the street met the alley, across the street from where cars were parked. … The photographs show that the only area where cars were parked was on the opposite side of Grace Street, which was clearly not within the immediate vicinity of where plaintiff tripped.

Higgins v. Village of Lyons

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ federal claims in Counts I-IV. … “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Morales v. United States

26 F. Supp. 3d 716 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 2013

The Court finds that neither of Petitioner’s proposed arguments are “both obvious and clearly stronger” than the issues his counsel raised on appeal. See id.; Lee, 328 F.3d at 900-01 . … Because Petitioner has failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective, no good cause exists for his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal.

Thillens, Inc. v. Fryzel

712 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 1989

Fryzel's first memorandum asserted a qualified immunity defense, apparently reading the Complaint as requesting damages as well as injunctive relief (that view may have been occasioned by the boilerplate inclusion, in each … Because qualified immunity applies only to cases involving money damages (see, e.g., Rodriguez v. Board of Education, 620 F.2d 362, 366 (2d Cir.1980)), Fryzel’s reply memorandum has abandoned that line of defense. 9 .

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

185 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 15, 2002

To establish a prima facie case for failure to promote, Plaintiff must show: (1) Olson was a member of a protected group; (2) Olson applied for and was qualified for the position; (3) Olson was rejected for the position; … This court notes that there is clearly a question in this case regarding whether Plaintiff can show the second element, that she was qualified for the position.

Yarem v. Duda

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 22, 2024

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claims when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 697 (7th Cir. 2023). … Defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, so it is incumbent on Yarem to point to a clearly established right that Duda violated. See Fosnight v. Jones, 41 F.4th 916, 924 (7th Cir. 2022).

Quinn v. Board of Education

234 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 13, 2017

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Resolution of State defendants’ argument that the ISBE members are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment is facilitated by plaintiffs’ apparent acquiescence to the view that the IBSE members … Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 , 103 S.Ct. 1564 , 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), not Sailors , establish the correct analytical framework for their claims.

Pryor v. Corrigan

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2022

Police officers receive qualified immunity unless they (1) violated a federal statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the unlawfulness of the conduct was “clearly established” at the time. See Reichle v. … He has not come forward with any case law establishing that the officer violated clearly established case law when he took Pryor to the ground. Gupta does not fit the bill.

People v. Siciliano

4 Ill. 2d 581 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1955

If believed by them, it was ample to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges laid in the indictments. … In the case of Evans, immunity was granted, and he thereafter testified willingly.

Houlihan v. City of Chicago

306 Ill. App. 3d 589 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1999

Act (the Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2 — 101 et seq. … TORT IMMUNITY ACT Plaintiffs next assert that the circuit court erred by holding that the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act) applied to this case. 745 ILCS 10/

Adams v. Baidwirn

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as the law they are alleged to have violated was neither clearly … Qualified immunity “‘shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Illinois State Trust Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

208 Ill. 419 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1904

condemnation was filed by appellee on May 29, 1903, and alleged that petitioner was a foreign corporation formed by the consolidation of corporations organized and existing under the laws of the States of Missouri and Arkansas and qualified … Unless both the letter and the spirit of the statute relied upon clearly confer the power it cannot be exercised. (Ligare v. City of Chicago, 139 Ill. 46 .)

Paine v. Johnson

689 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that they are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … In sum, qualified immunity does not shield Defendants’ actions because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendants violated Eilman’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Du Page County Airport Authority v. Department of Revenue

358 Ill. App. 3d 476 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 2005

The new statutory language does not clearly alter the “broadly written exemption” upon which the supreme court based its conclusion that privately leased property could qualify for an exemption so long as its use otherwise … The disputed property cannot qualify for the first basis for exemption. F.

Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak

223 Ill. 2d 318 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2006

Clearly it did. … The burden is on the party challenging the statute to clearly establish any constitutional invalidity.

Sassali v. DeFauw

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 1998

The order is clearly directed only toward the sheriff and, on its face, does not authorize DeFauw to take any action. … I believe the certified question was more clearly answered in Marcus v. Liebman , 59 Ill.

McKenna v. Beezy

130 F.R.D. 655 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 1989

immunity defense. … Plaintiffs clearly failed to exercise reasonable diligence in effecting service of process. Out of concern for Illinois’ policy, see, e.g., Muskat v.