Case law

Wexler v. Allegion (Uk) Ltd.

374 F. Supp. 3d 302 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 2019

The Appellate Division has also contrasted absolute privileges with qualified privileges in holding that a qualified privilege-for communications between persons sharing a common interest-does not bar a claim for breach of … a non-disparagement clause, because "[a]n absolute privilege protects a greater public interest than a qualified privilege."

Slavin v. Tanner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2023

Prison officials "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time." … Tanner argues that both parts of the qualified immunity inquiry cut in his favor: (1) Slavin's allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and (2) there is no clearly established right to a fully

People v. Lemons

303 Ill. App. 3d 259 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 1999

To ignore defendant's purposeful violation of his probation would, in some instances, immunize him from receiving a legiti­ mate ex­tend­ed-term sentence merely because of his original status as a pro­ba­tion­er. … Section 5-5-3.2(b)(1) clearly states that the 10-year period begins to run on the date of "the previous convic­tion," and once the period begins to run it expires 10 years later, "exclud­ing time spent in custody," not a

Varela v. St. Elizabeth's Hospital of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 7, 2006

The trial court found, however, that the school board was immunized from liability for its employee's misconduct in part by section 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS … 10/2-201 (West 2000) (Tort Immunity Act)), and dismissed the complaint.

In re R.J.

2022 IL App (1st) 211542 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 18, 2022

The legislature clearly intended to mean different things. See People v. … (use-immunity statute providing that, upon motion of State, trial court “shall order that a witness be granted immunity from prosecution in a criminal case” was mandatory command on trial court (emphasis in original and

City of Chicago v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV.

293 Ill. App. 3d 892 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1997

The Illinois Supreme Court has clearly held that a claim for declaratory relief is not a present claim. … Furthermore, the Illinois Municipal Code of 1961 authorized municipalities to establish and maintain parks.

Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB "Lady Elgin"

746 F. Supp. 1334 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 1990

Florida opposed the motion on the ground of sovereign immunity. … within them or including a thing falling clearly without.

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Weinberger

395 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 8, 1975

The statutory regulation under attack in Rasulis established professional standards which physical therapists must meet in order to qualify for reimbursement under the Medicare Program. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 405.-1101(q). … Plaintiffs contend that Congress lacks author *139 ity to grant legal immunity against common law tort liability; and if the immunity provisions of the challenged legislation are enforceable, the legislation imposes duties

Board of Education v. A, C and S, Inc.

131 Ill. 2d 428 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1989

Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, the governmental body need not be asserting an interest affecting everyone in the State in order for it to qualify as a public right. … The defendant next argues that regardless of any common law immunity the products liability statute of limitations clearly bars an untimely action by a governmental entity. In Clare v.

Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103

83 Ill. App. 3d 1139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 29, 1980

Therein the court held that the standards for qualifications established by Circular Series A, No. 160, are incorporated into the meaning of “legally qualified” as used in section 24 — 12 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. … In the case at bar for the trial court to take further action than that necessary to issue the writ of mandamus was clearly improper.

Moy v. County of Cook

159 Ill. 2d 519 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1994

The complaint clearly alleges the county’s liability based upon the conduct of its employees. … Clearly, the sheriffs statutory duties with respect to the Cook County jail are independent of and unalterable by any governing body.

Allen v. United States

547 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 1982

Finally, the Court of Claims concluded that its resolution of the issue was more harmonious with the long-established principle that the Government would not waive its sovereign immunity from interest claims, unless Congress … clearly stated that that was its intention.

Moyer v. Southern Illinois Hospital Service Corp.

327 Ill. App. 3d 889 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2002

Bleyer is not a nurse and he does not establish that he is otherwise qualified to testify about nursing procedures, he was not qualified to testify regarding the nurse’s standard of care in administering or monitoring thrombolytic … Bleyer’s deposition establishes that he was qualified pursuant to section 2 — 622(a) to complete the written report required by that section.

Khorrami v. Rolince

493 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2007

Qualifted Immunity Defendants argue that I should dismiss Plaintiffs claim based on qualified immunity. I find that these attacks on Plaintiffs complaint are premature. See Alvarado v. … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir.2001) (“[A] complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.”); Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 , 765 n. 3 (7th Cir.2000).

Champ v. Forcum

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 11, 2023

Plaintiff also argues qualified immunity does not shield the Defendants from liability because access to legal materials and the courts is a clearly established First Amendment right (Id. at pp. 8-9). … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person

People v. Young

2018 IL App (3d) 160003 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 2018

More importantly, defendant does not argue that he was not extended-term eligible; he simply argues that the record does not clearly establish that he was. … That is, the error is that the trial court record did not clearly establish that defendant served at least 7½ months of a 6-year sentence for his 2004 conviction.

Central Austin Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Chicago

2013 IL App (1st) 123041 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 21, 2014

Further, clearly definable criteria for decision may be available. … The Act establishes standards for courts to use when confronted with allegations of such disparate impact.

Luciani v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc.

105 Ill. App. 2d 448 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1969

in order to qualify for participation in the net profits of a division. … The net profit of a division shall be rebated only to qualified participants thereof.

Golbert v. Aurora Chicago Lakeshore Hospital LLC

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Bass v. Cook County Hospital

29 N.E.3d 1130 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 2015

Bass counter-argues that the Act was not intended to provide civil immunity for all emergency physicians, but only to the types of EMS personnel clearly defined within it. … However, we disagree with Bass's position that this fact establishes that the Act did not intend to provide civil immunity for Dr. Strane in the case at bar.