Case law

Lyons Township ex rel Kielczynski v. Village of Indian Head Park

2017 IL App (1st) 161574 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2017

Clearly, a qui tam action would not be brought on behalf of a government entity engaging in fraud, or any other random government unit with no ties to the claim. … by the Tort Immunity Act

Harden v. The City of Chicago

2013 IL App (1st) 120846 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 2014

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (West 2008)). … Vaughn, 166 Ill. 2d at 161-62. ¶ 36 “Although we are sympathetic to plaintiff’s injuries, the Illinois legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens

Rodriguez v. Village of Park Forest

2021 IL App (1st) 201269-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 19, 2021

provision provides only qualified immunity with an exception for willful and wanton conduct. … Yet, even if a public employee was enforcing a law, the absolute immunity afforded by another section will prevail over section 2- 202’s qualified immunity when the facts fall within the more specific application

Mennes v. South Chicago Community Hospital

100 Ill. App. 3d 1029 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1981

The California court found that records of the hospital credentials committee which screened applicants for staff privileges were immune from discovery. … This was clearly information used in the course of internal quality control, made confidential by section 1.

Alwin v. The Village of Wheeling

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 2007

According to plaintiffs, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that the terrain of the RSA was a proximate cause of the crash. … A verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the findings of the jury are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence.

Segal v. Chicago City Railway Co.

325 Ill. 43 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1927

The Appellate Court in its opinion on page 16 says: “We think the preponderance of the evidence is clearly against the verdict, thus necessitating, in the exercise of our powers and duty, a reversal of the judgment with a … It is therefore beyond controversy that in this case the evidence was conflicting and that the plaintiff’s evidence tended to establish a cause of action.

Anderson-El v. O'KEEFE

897 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 22, 1995

He argues in the alternative that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Serious Medical Needs The “due process clause requires treatment only for serious wounds.” Davis v. … Dworak is entitled to qualified immunity.

Coleman-Napper v. CKEM, Inc

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 3, 2023

“[O]fficers 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.” Id. … Here, Defendants Cleveland and Cooper argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right for Mr. Napper to have Roever arrested.

Vincent Ex Rel. Reed v. DEPT. HUMAN SERV.

392 Ill. App. 3d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2009

Congress further provided that the rule applies "whether or not the medicaid qualifying trust is irrevocable or is established for purposes other than to enable a grantor to qualify for medical assistance * * * or * * * whether … Given these facts, we cannot say that the Department's finding that the invoice was not "exclusively for a reason other than to qualify for assistance" was clearly erroneous.

Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Board of Review

231 Ill. 317 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

It is an institution of public charity, and where an institution devoted to beneficence of that character is, under the law, exempt from taxation, it does not lose its immunity by reason of the fact that those patients received … of bringing itself within the statute exempting the property of institutions of public charity from taxation, but the evidence in this case clearly shows that no such state of affairs exists here.

Haberer v. Moorman Manufacturing Co.

341 Ill. App. 521 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1950

The sheep were given a serum for immunity. There was evidence that in the latter part of March the flock of sheep were healthy, even though a few had had shipping fever. … This is particularly true in view of the fact that the jury was clearly instructed as to the necessity for establishing by evidence the right of the plaintiff in the cause to recover.

Wilhite v. Illinois Power Co.

139 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2001

If an employer does not qualify as a loaning employer under the first test, there is a second test. … Thus, the Court will only allow Illinois Power’s Motion For Summary Judgment if Illinois Power can clearly establish that Matthew Wilhite was a borrowed employee. 1.

Williams v. Aines

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2024

is a clearly established right, meaning that the Defendants are not shielded by qual- ified immunity. Pl.’s Resp. at 10 (citing Monfils, 165 F.3d 511; Jackson, 653 F.3d 647). … But that is too high of a level of generality at which to assess qualified immunity: Williams must either cite a “clearly analogous case establishing the right to be free from the conduct at issue,” or show that even without

Busch v. Bates

323 Ill. App. 3d 823 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2001

The defendants moved for summary judgment on May 8, 1999, and again asserted the defense of sovereign immunity. … Illinois State Police Directive PER-30, 92-51, established an internal investigative procedure within the Illinois State Police concerning complaint and disciplinary investigations.

Gallagher v. Lenart

226 Ill. 2d 208 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2007

We agree that a claim to enforce a workers’ compensation lien qualifies as a “claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act” in the abstract. … Plaintiffs assert that Rail Terminal’s lien qualifies as a “dispute[ ] or claim[ ]” arising out of Gallagher’s relationship with Rail Terminal.

People v. Nally

216 Ill. App. 3d 742 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 1991

Under transaction immunity, however, the witness is fully immunized from prosecution for any offense to which his compelled testimony may relate. (Fitzgerald, 66 Ill. 2d at 549 .) … The trial judge’s statements clearly focused on the force employed and the physical manner in which McNamee’s death was brought about, and not simply the fact of death itself.

Williams v. Williams

108 Ill. App. 3d 936 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 27, 1982

App. 3d 74, 75-76 , 411 N.E.2d 547 , 548: “[I]n *** Elkins *** the Illinois Supreme Court held that the immunity established by the 1953 amendment did not bar suit, but rather that it provided the tortfeasor spouse with a … While the instant case does not at this point involve a co-tortfeasor and the issue of contribution, the Wirth opinion clearly recognized that the modern tort trend with respect to interspousal immunity is to dilute the doctrine

Turner v. Memorial Medical Center

233 Ill. 2d 494 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2009

The court concluded plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a public policy that a provision of law clearly mandated which Memorial allegedly violated by discharging plaintiff. … We do not read section 3 of the Medical Patients Rights Act to establish a clearly mandated public policy of patient safety that was violated by plaintiffs discharge.

Davila

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

Pustul also argues that he has qualified immunity from Davila’s claim. Def.’s Br. at 8–9. … Indeed, Davila cites no cases at all in responding to the qualified immunity de- fense. See id. So qualified immunity does apply, and is another reason why the sum- mary judgment motion must be granted.

Moton v. City of Rockford

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

Fourth, in the alternative, Defendants argue that Officer Vazquez is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law would have informed him that his conduct was unlawful. (Id.at 10.) … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense.” Taylor, 132 F.4th at 486.