Case law

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

Griffin v. City of Chicago

406 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2005

Under qualified immunity, “ ‘public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because qualified immunity is both an immunity from suit and a defense to liability, we should resolve the issue of qualified immunity “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Saucier v.

Wittmer v. Peters

904 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 1995

Therefore, since Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that Defendants were on notice that their actions violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Regardless, because there is no clearly established authority that could have placed Defendants on notice that their actions violated the law (assuming they did in fact violate the law), qualified immunity shields Defendants

Lifton v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

290 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome assertion of a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Flenner v. Sheahan

920 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1996

to qualified immunity.” … Accordingly, Sheahan is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they possessed a clearly established right to avoid patronage dismissal. See Harlow v.

Smith v. Burge

222 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 28, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … When evaluating qualified immunity, courts consider two questions: (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations show that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established

Sanders v. Marovich

102 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2000

and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time? Forman v.. Richmond Police Dep’t., 104 F.3d 950 , 957 (7th Cir.1997). The alleged conduct would constitute a violation. Mr. … However, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

291 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2018

A valid qualified immunity defense can foreclose liability under § 1983. … "Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Powell v. City of Berwyn

68 F. Supp. 3d 929 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government .actors from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … When making a qualified immunity determination, a court considers (1) whether the [evidence] show[s] that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Gavin v. McGinnis

866 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 24, 1994

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The court also notes that the doctrine of qualified immunity could protect Schomig as well, although he has not raised the defense as of yet. In Hunter v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

McMurry v. Sheahan

927 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 1996

Nor is Foley entitled to qualified immunity. As previously stated, Foley’s actions in relying on a inaccurate computer system were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Additionally, the fact that the arrest was made on an invalid warrant is sufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of a clearly established law. Foley is not entitled to the defense of qualified Immunity.

Flournoy v. Colbenson

37 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 2014

Second, it must be determined whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct alleged. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (even dicta may clearly establish a right); see also Hanes, 578 F.3d at 496 .

Greene v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

79 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2015

Because Plaintiffs’ right not to lose their job assignments for political reasons was not clearly established, however, Toni Preckwinkle is entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their right was clearly, established. President Preckwinkle is, therefore, entitled to ■ qualified immunity.

Carter v. Dixon

718 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 7, 1989

Initially, defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity; but such immunity does not protect an official *1390 whose conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v. … For this reason, if plaintiffs can prove their allegations that defendants used unreasonable force, then defendants cannot properly invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Bianchi v. McQueen

917 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” … The qualified immunity analysis comprises a two-part inquiry: (i) “whether the facts alleged show that the state actor violated a constitutional right,” and (ii) “whether the right was clearly established.” Hanes v.

Owusu v. Grzyb

749 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 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 … The Dolton and River-dale officer defendants correctly respond, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that absent circumstances indicating an unlawful entry, a police

Moshe v. Anchor Organization for Health Maintenance

199 Ill. App. 3d 585 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 25, 1990

Clearly, Anchor’s status as a Health Plans Act corporation is conclusively established by the record and is not at issue here. … Voluntary Health Services Plans Act, we believe the legislature has clearly carved out a separate and distinct classification of health care providers.

Augustine v. Edgar

576 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1983

“Qualified immunity” is the norm for executive officials in general. … The court discussed the defense of qualified immunity for government officials.

White v. City of Chicago

308 Ill. Dec. 518 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2006

Hawes, whom the police first interviewed in October 1997, was clearly a known witness. … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001), the court addressed qualified, not absolute, immunity. Furthermore, in Forsyth v.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Village of South Barrington

958 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for Section 1983 liability, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct constitutes a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established