Case law

Bennett v. Village of Oak Park

748 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context presented

Pyka v. Village of Orland Park

906 F. Supp. 1196 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 8, 1995

Count I: Excessive Force.1215 (a) Qualified Immunity.1215 (i) Scope of Discretionary Authority.1216 (ii) Constitutional Violation.1217 (iii) Clearly Established Law....1219 (b) A Split of Authority.1219 (i) The Circuit Court … Thus, immunity may be conferred on a defendant only if the undisputed facts establish that the defendant’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. Id.

Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co.

980 N.E.2d 630 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 8, 2012

Plaintiff argues that any immunity under subsection 230(c)(1) of the CDA does not apply to his negligent supervision cause of action and that, even if it did, defendant does not meet the terms to qualify for … App. 2001) (library providing Internet access to the public by use of computers qualified as an ICS provider or user). ¶ 37 B.

Qvyjt v. Lin

953 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 1997

They further contend that, with respect to Count III, they áre entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly established that professors at a public university violate a graduate student’s First Amendment rights when … ■Having concluded that plaintiff has rebutted the first prong of the qualified immunity defense, the court turns to the second prong — whether the constitutional standards were clearly .established at the time defendants

Henderson v. Harris

672 F. Supp. 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1987

Defendant Jenkins’ duty with respect to inmates held in custody at the MCC has been clearly established. In Estelle v. … The Supreme Court, however, has defined qualified immunity as protecting an official who, in performing a discretionary function, acted in such a way as not to “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Kennedy v. Hardiman

684 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1988

suspicion” standard was not “clearly established” for searches of correctional officers at correctional institutions. … may be en *545 titled to judgment on his qualified immunity defense after trial.

Meer v. Graham

524 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 2007

Although qualified immunity is an affirma *1055 tive defense, in certain circumstances it is appropriate to resolve the applicability of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss. Jacobs v. … established, or that the law concerning Meer’s retaliatory discharge claim was not clearly established. 8 .

Purtell v. Mason

412 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, Officer Mason contends that he is protected from this civil lawsuit by qualified immunity. … Under the second qualified immunity prong, it is the Purtells’ burden to establish that their First Amendment right was “clearly established.” Id.

Atkins v. City of Chicago

632 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton], supra, [ 483 U.S. 635 ] at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) ]. … from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Munson v. Gaetz

957 F. Supp. 2d 951 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 17, 2013

However, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Moving Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualiñed Immunity “Generally, qualified immunity protects government agents from liability when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Armstrong v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 15, 2021

“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. … The qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: (1) whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct

Wernsing v. Thompson

286 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2003

Qualified Immunity Thompson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known and is therefore not exempt from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Robinson v. Gerritson

210 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2002

Qualified immunity shields defendant police officers from liability where their conduct (1) did not violate any clearly established rights and (2) was objectively reasonable (Biddle v. … But as the earlier quotation from Humphrey teaches, Gerritson need not establish probable cause as a matter of law to take shelter within the mantle of qualified immunity.

Marcavage v. City of Chicago

635 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 2009

Qualified immunity is designed to shield government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … So they too did not violate any of Marcavage’s “clearly established” rights under the Fourth Amendment, and they too are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

Hamilton v. Peters

919 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials engaged in discretionary functions from suit “as long as their conduct does not violate a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right ‘of which a reasonable … were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Tucker v. Randall

840 F. Supp. 1237 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 8, 1993

Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Defendants violated a “clearly established,” particularized law at the time of the alleged violation that would preclude a qualified immunity defense on this issue. … For this reason, Tucker’s deprivation claims are barred by the qualified immunity doctrine because he does not assert any “clearly established” law at the time of the violation that would support his individual claims.

Kay v. Frerichs

2021 IL App (1st) 192271 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 2021

In 1996, 1-19-2271 Congress authorized the states to establish “qualified tuition plans,” commonly known as 529 plans, that allow individuals to make contributions to tax-free investment accounts in order to pay for higher … These are the precise circumstances for which the sovereign immunity doctrine is designed. ¶ 22 Moreover, the monetary relief sought by Ms. Kay further establishes that sovereign immunity applies to this case.

Taylor v. Paladines

983 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 28, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit for damages if their actions are reasonable “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Neither party disputes that the constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause was well established at the time of Taylor’s arrest. 2 Taylor must therefore demonstrate the- second prong of qualified immunity

Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

429 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2006

Defendants nonetheless contend that dismissal is appropriate in this case because the defendants did not violate a clearly established right and are therefore legally entitled to qualified im *944 munity. … Grayeb, 395 F.3d 761 (7th Cir.2005), in which the Seventh Circuit directed the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on a class of one claim, concluding that the right at issue was not clearly established

Love v. Sheahan

156 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

In the context of a qualified immunity defense, binding precedent is not needed to clearly establish a right. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988); Brokaw v. … Because it was clearly established during the time that Love was held in segregation that Love was entitled to certain procedural protections, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.