Case law

Lai v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2025

is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’” … immunity,” as the “question is not whether rules of individual liability for the conduct were clearly established at the time” but rather “whether the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established.”

People v. E.R.H. Enterprises

2013 IL 115106 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2014

for work that clearly falls within the description of work subject to the Wage Act. … A court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent authority.

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.

Mansoori

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2025

Alternatively, Morrison argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Still, Morrison raises a qualified immunity defense, which “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Mullins v. Evans

2021 IL App (1st) 191962 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Act, and count V should be dismissed because it was barred under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (745 ILCS 5/0.01 et seq. … However, where a conspiracy is established by circumstantial evidence, “that evidence must be clear and convincing.”

Clemons v. Dart

168 F. Supp. 3d 1060 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 2016

To prevail under either theory, Clemons must establish that he (1) is a qualified individual with a disability, 4 that (2) he was denied ’the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise … But even if a facility constructed after 1992 fails to comply with those structural requirements, its shortcomings do not violate the ADA if the facility can clearly establish that equal access was provided notwithstanding

Simmons v. Legner

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 2021

Defendants are otherwise entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions. Purtell v.

Wozniak v. Cavender

875 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 1995

The defendants also contend that Cavender and Siewert are entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, it can not be concluded that Cavender and Siewert reasonably should have known that their conduct may have violated a clearly established right.

Kainrath v. Grider

2021 IL App (1st) 200247-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2021

Immunity Under Section 2-210 of the Tort Immunity Act ¶ 13 Defendants maintain that Mr. … “[O]nce a defendant establishes a qualified privilege,” however, “a plaintiff must prove that the defendant either intentionally published the material while knowing the matter was false, or displayed a reckless disregard

Lockhart v. Adams

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official's alleged

Yeager v. Owsley

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 2022

Yeager cannot establish that Mr. Owsley acted under color of law and, alternatively, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 13, at 1. As the Court noted, Ms. Yeager did not file a response to Mr. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Morales v. City Of Evanston

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 2025

They assert, instead, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was unconstitutional to “detain those in contact or associated with the students accused of serious misconduct … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Beaman v.

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

Anderson v. Beach

386 Ill. App. 3d 246 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2008

He argues that conditional privilege — also known as qualified privilege — does not apply and even if it did, Beach abused the privilege by recklessly failing to investigate the truth of her statements. … An absolute privilege provides a complete immunity from civil action even though the statements were made with malice because public policy favors the free and unhindered flow of such information. [Citation.]”

Hicks v. City of O'Fallon

2019 IL App (5th) 180397 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 2020

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2016)). … The City argued that Hicks’s argument had “absolutely no merit” because the Illinois General Assembly clearly delineated section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act to apply to patients receiving care in public

In Re Wheat Rail Freight Rate Antitrust Litigation

579 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 1984

The court began its analysis of the implied immunity issue by recognizing that immunity not expressly granted by statute is the exception to the rule: It is well-established ... that regulated industries “are not per se exempt … The court stated “implementation of unapproved agreements, including activities involving the establishment of rates that are filed as tariffs, is not immune from the antitrust laws.” Id. at 1241 .

Wilson v. Riggs

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 15, 2025

Page 9 of 11 Qualified Immunity Defendant further argues he is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Generally, government officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority

58 Ill. App. 3d 1029 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 1978

Employees Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … Clearly, the purpose of section 9— 103 by failure to raise this contention specifically in the trial court (Brown v. Shook (1971), 132 Ill.

People ex rel. Smith v. Common Council of Aurora

78 Ill. 218 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1875

, amendatory thereof, in force February 16, 1859, that one judge should be elected by the qualified electors of the two cities, for both courts. … The person so elected was to hold his office until his successor should be elected and qualified.

Brown v. Morsi

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2018

Once Defendants invoke qualified immunity, 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 challenged conduct.” … If, accepting Plaintiff’s account and drawing inferences in the light most favorable to her, Morsi’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, then Morsi warrants qualified immunity. See Mullenix, 136 S.