Case law

Wrice v. Burge

187 F. Supp. 3d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2015

The immunity inquiry “focuses on the conduct for which immunity is claimed, not on the harm that the conduct may have caused or the question whether it was lawful.” Buckley v. … When prosecutors’ duties “go beyond the strictly prosecutorial to include investigation, and when they do non-prosecutorial work they lose their absolute immunity and have only the immunity, called ‘qualified,’ that other

Santiago v. United States of America

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 8, 2022

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … At the motion to dismiss stage, to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must have alleged a violation of a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation so

City of Chicago v. Latronica Asphalt and Grading, Inc.

346 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 2004

Further, “it is well established that where a statute of limitations does ‘expressly include the State, county, municipality, or other governmental agencies,’ common law governmental limitations immunity will not bar a limitations … Cecola, 75 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 389 N.E.2d 526 (1979) (privately owned establishment for prostitution). In Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill.

Robinson v. Crot

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

They also argue that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as well as immunity under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. (R. 11 at 10–13.) … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of Cicero

175 F. Supp. 3d 953 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2016

Polk Defendants argue that Polk had probable cause to arrest Meza and that he is thus entitled to qualified immunity from his First Amendment claim. In Reichle v. … . -, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2095 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012), the Supreme Court held that an officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a retaliatory arrest would violate the First Amendment

Shell Oil Co. v. Pollution Control Board

37 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 5, 1976

more qualified to decide technical problems and the mechanics of dealing with them. … The legislature qualified that power only to the extent that the Board’s regulations be reasonable in that they take into account the factors enumerated in section 27.

Elizondo v. Ramirez

324 Ill. App. 3d 67 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 17, 2001

We, too, conclude that the collection of a small fee, by someone who, absent the fee, would otherwise clearly not be a business invitor, is insufficient to establish the special relationship of business invitor and invitee … That defendants charged a fee to guests attending what would otherwise clearly be a social gathering is insufficient to establish this relationship.

Younge v. Berman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2023

When presented with a qualified immunity argument, the court “must address two questions: whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established … Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam).2 Berman argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that he would have known that

Alla v. Kornfeld

84 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 1949

states a cause of action, and is immune- to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. … If a person establishes domicile in a foreign country, he loses his State citizenship but not necessarily his United States citizenship. He loses the latter only where he renounces or otherwise abandons or loses it.

Runkel v. City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2019

Plaintiff also argues that Langfelder is not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly established at the time Plaintiff was not promoted that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of race in … To counter a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

DiBenedetto v. City of Chicago

873 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 27, 1994

Furthermore, the issue of the officer’s qualified immunity was not raised. Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability. Sherman v. … The facts provided are insufficient to establish a conspiracy, let alone a conspiracy with a purpose to deprive DiBenedetto his constitutional rights. See id.

Smith v. City of Chicago

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that, even if the Detectives lacked probable cause, they are protected by qualified immunity. … But qualified immunity is not absolute.

Fitzpatrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 10, 2024

“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 Fitzpatrick’s abdominal lump.

Yoggerst v. Stewart

571 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 22, 1983

In determining whether an official is entitled to a grant of immunity the court must decide whether his conduct, at the time it was undertaken, violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Moreover, if a federal district judge would determine on the facts of this case that no constitutional violation had occurred, it seems eminently reasonable that a lay person could not have violated a clearly established

Wardwell v. McDowell

31 Ill. 364 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1863

The testimony clearly showed such neglect. The case does not show there was any testimony other than parol, of this neglect. In Roseborm v. Mosher, 2 Denio, 69 , the court say, if Mi’. … qualify, is valid.

Robinson v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

257 Ill. App. 3d 772 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1994

The court noted that section 3 — 104 "clearly and unequivocally states that the municipality is immune from all liability arising out of the failure to provide a particular traffic control device.” … The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs could not establish that the grade of the crossing proximately caused the accident.

People v. T.W.

402 Ill. App. 3d 981 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2010

The record also clearly establishes that the trial court conceded respondent’s request for funds was for a “crucial expert witness.” … The victim’s testimony clearly established that the attacker rubbed his penis on the victim’s anus twice.

Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Durkin

380 Ill. 11 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1942

Inasmuch as the pattern makers were the strikers, they clearly do not fall within the proviso. … This subsection clearly provides that a department with a separate branch of work that is commonly conducted as a separate business shall be deemed to be “a separate factory, establishment or other premises” within the meaning

The People v. Bruckman

33 Ill. 2d 150 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1965

Olmstead, 32 Ill.2d 306 , the nature of a proceeding under the act is such as to require adherence to the established principles of due process of law. … The act clearly requires this to be done, but because the cause must be remanded for a new hearing, we need not consider whether the failure of the record to disclose written psychiatric reports and service of copies on respondent

Rymer v. Kendall College

64 Ill. App. 3d 355 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1978

The letter notifying him of his release clearly indicated that the ground for his release was discontinuation of a particular course of instruction. … To view the language regarding discontinued courses as surplusage would clearly violate this rule.