Case law

United States v. DiGrazia

213 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 1963

Under all the circumstances, it would seem desirable to establish the rule that, except as to perjury indictments arising out of testimony before the Grand Jury, no individual who is not warned of his privilege against self-incrimination … While some of these questions are not prejudicial and might properly be asked in testing the validity of the witness’ reliance on her constitutional privilege, others are clearly prejudicial and could only be calculated to

Roman v. Hileman

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Haligas v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified immunity “protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … would not violate clearly established rights.’”

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. Green

289 Ill. 81 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1919

1899 is entitled “An act concerning the rights, powers and duties of certain corporations therein mentioned, authorizing the sale and transfer of any railroad, or railroad and toll bridge, and other property, franchises, immunities … Unless both the letter and the spirit of the statute relied upon clearly confer the power it cannot be exercised. (Ligare v. City of Chicago, 139 Ill. 46 .)

Harding v. Rosewell

22 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1998

Fuglsang argue that they are not liable for any of the alleged defamatory statements because they possess a qualified privilege or have absolute immunity. … Both absolute immunity and qualified privilege are affirmative defenses that need to be raised in the defendants’ answer.

Kavales v. City of Berwyn

305 Ill. App. 3d 536 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 1999

Thus, in the case at bar, looking to the property itself, it is clearly intended for use by pedestrians. … The testimony was not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to establish evidence of a routine business practice.

Hayes v. Board of Education for the City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2022

Thus, a court must determine whether the facts actually alleged clearly establish a qualified immunity defense. … Reading the complaint in her favor, Plaintiff has not clearly alleged facts that support Defendants’ qualified immunity or immunity under the TIA.

Silva v. Read

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 14, 2021

“Qualified immunity ‘protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Evaluating an assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to ask “whether the plaintiff's allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Lewis v. Beckman

57 Ill. App. 3d 482 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1978

In the instant case, we have no facts in the record from which to determine whether any statement of defendant could qualify as an excited utterance. … The statutory inconsistency referred to in section 65 exists only when the special findings are clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the general verdict. Cohen v. Sager (1971), 2 Ill.

Davis v. Village of Maywood

240 N.E.3d 59 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2023

In the alternative, Maywood argued that it was immunized from liability by various sections of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … Also, although Maywood was not immunized by either statute that the municipality cited, it was immunized by the similarly worded statute regarding willful and wanton conduct that we quoted in the first paragraph of this

Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers

304 F.R.D. 242 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2014

The email is not privileged as editorial changes or contributions by a lawyer do not qualify under the attorney/client privilege. Musa-Muaremi v. … The email is essentially blank and is clearly not privileged. 10. Exhibit 10 is a February 15, 2011 email from Mr. Wells to Ms. Morgan. The email says nothing and clearly does not ask for legal advice.

Jackson v. Vasquez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 18, 2023

As to all asserted claims, Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from liability. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v.

Werthman v. ILLINOIS DMH/DD

831 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1993

Arnold was appointed acting superintendent of Read, even though plaintiff was more qualified. … The statutory language must be unmistakably clear before an intent to abrogate the states' immunities will be recognized.

Zurek v. Hasten

553 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 15, 1982

Moriarity, 563 F.2d 343, 351-52 (7th Cir. 1977) is clearly distinguishable. … But even if it did apply, it would not enlarge the scope of immunity beyond what the State claims for itself. 9 .

People v. Sutton

45 Ill. App. 3d 739 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 1977

His wife Anita May Moore also testified for the State admitting that in return for her testimony she had been granted immunity. … The instant case does not fall clearly within any one of the established exceptions to the general rule of evidence of unrelated crimes being inadmissible.

Punke v. Village of Elliott

364 Ill. 604 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1936

No particular right, privilege or immunity was granted the petitioner that was not likewise conferred upon other owners in like situation. It is neither a special nor a local law. … The judicial department may not interfere with such classification when made unless it is clearly unreasonable. (Casparis Stone Co. v. Industrial Board. 278 Ill. 77 .)

Bear Sterns & Co., Inc. v. Wyler

182 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2002

That immunity would necessarily be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court continued, and under Kastigar v. … Clearly, Wyler's circumstances are rather divorced from those present in Bin Laden .

Tomkins v. Village of Tinley Park

566 F. Supp. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1983

Thus, the mere fact that plaintiff’s property was taken without a pre-deprivation hearing does not necessarily establish a § 1983 cause of action. … The Lynch Court noted that: the Congress that enacted the predecessor of § 1983 ... seems clearly to have intended to provide a federal judicial forum for the redress of wrongful deprivations of property by persons acting

Glass v. City of Chicago

323 Ill. App. 3d 158 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2001

Act (Governmental Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/3—101 et seq. … Alternatively, a new trial is appropriate if the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of evidence in that it is palpably erroneous, clearly the result of passion and prejudice or arbitrary and unreasonable.

Davis v. Harper

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants Trikha and Biama also move for summary judgement based on qualified immunity, arguing that administration of the EEM did not violate clearly established rights. … Governmental 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