Case law

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 .)

Irshad Learning Center v. County of DuPage

804 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2011

Immunity Defendants argue that the individual Defendants are shielded by quasi-judicial immunity, (Def.’s Br. at 5), or, alternatively, legislative immunity. (Id. at 8.) … Whether or not these institutions qualify as “similarly situated” to Plaintiff need not be determined at this stage.

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

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 .)

Johnson v. Halloran

194 Ill. 2d 493 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2000

Having established defendants' employment status, we must next consider whether and to what extent they are shielded by sovereign immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity was abolished by this court in Molitor v. … Such language does not indicate clearly the temporal reach of this Act.

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

Matchett v. Chicago Bar Ass'n

125 Ill. App. 3d 1004 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 1984

In addition, Matchett asked for a declaratory judgment against the CBA, stating that, aside from the age criterion, he had been found qualified or well qualified. … and supporting facts sufficient to establish the “actual malice” necessary to overcome the privilege.

Armour v. Atkins

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (Doc. 81 at p. 13). … The defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity because government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability when their conduct doesn’t violate

Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc.

2016 IL App (4th) 150991 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2017

Plaintiff must prove five things by a preponderance of the evidence: First, that Plaintiff is Caucasian [non-Pentecostal]; Second, that Plaintiff applied for and was qualified … The fact that Defendant may have treated some Caucasians or non-Pentecostal employees favorably does not immunize it from liability in this case.

Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District

171 Ill. 2d 435 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1996

The record does not clearly establish whether plaintiff hit the bottom of the lake, a submerged rock, or floating debris, but even assuming that Smith hit a submerged rock or a slab of concrete, no competent evidence was … Finally, we note that in both Bucheleres and Smith the Park District raised the affirmative defense of governmental tort immunity pursuant to section 3 — 106 of the Tort Immunity Act.

Progressive Party v. Flynn

400 Ill. 102 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1948

Appellees also urge that section 4 of article 7 of the Election Code prevents appellant, the Progressive Party, from qualifying as an established political party, because the vote qualifying it as a political party took place … This proviso clearly leaves under article 7 the cases in which the group cast more than five per cent. (2) Section 10-2 provides the term “political party” shall mean “established political party,” when in a State election

Vesey Ex Rel. Vesey v. Chicago Housing Authority

205 Ill. App. 3d 962 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 1, 1990

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (111. … We further note that the CHA has pleaded an affirmative defense based on the immunity provision of section 3 — 102.

Hicks v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 2022

Government officials are entitled to 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 … Defendants raise, and are entitled to, the qualified immunity defense as to this claim because the Department’s Code of Conduct did not violate clearly established law.

McCullough v. Rodriguez Jr.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 13, 2024

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if his actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted." Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 2021).

Robledo v. City of Chicago

444 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 2006

Defendants next argue that the claims against Reyna-Hickey in her indi *906 vidual capacity should be dismissed because she is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[A] complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir.2001).

Quick v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability stemming from discretionary functions, but only if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To survive a motion to dismiss in the face of a qualified immunity defense, the Complaint must plausibly allege that Bender violated Plaintiffs clearly established rights by denying them a license.

Perry v. Wiltse

256 Ill. App. 3d 422 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 1993

Further, plaintiff asserts that the trial court’s determination that a qualified privilege protected defendant’s words is not supported by the evidence. … This is clearly met in the instant case.

Oats, Sr. v. McHenry County Animal Control And Its Officers And Administration

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 2023

To escape suit, Enos raises the defense of qualified immunity. Defs.’ Memo. at 2, at Dkt. 43. … need not plead to state a claim,” it may be appropriate if the complaint manifestly fails to allege a violation of clearly established law.

Evans v. Allen

981 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 24, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that the complaint should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In re Establishment Inspection of Caterpillar Inc., 55 F.3d 334, 336 (7th Cir.1995).