Case law

Atkins v. City of Chicago

441 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

Qualified Immunity State officials enjoy qualified immunity and “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … There is a two-step test for an official’s entitlement to qualified immunity (Miller v.

Wozniak v. Adesida

368 F. Supp. 3d 1217 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018

Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right "was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right "was clearly established at the time the challenged *1255

DeLaFont v. Beckelman

264 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2003

Time Line of Case Law A state actor is shielded from liability if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity As a general rule, courts engage in a two-part inquiry to determine whether a defendant is immune from damages.

Wysocki v. Crump

838 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2011

Finally, Defendant asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that suspending T.W. after hearing Plaintiffs complaint would violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Ryan v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

963 F. Supp. 1490 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that even if the speech is protected and even if the speech survives the balancing test, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … with department procedures because the law was clearly established in 1991.

Thurman v. Village of Hazel Crest

570 F. Supp. 2d 1019 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2008

The test for qualified immunity is whether: (1) “the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a constitutional right;” and (2) the “constitutional right was clearly established … it would not violate a clearly established right.

Golian v. N.Y.C. Admin. for Children Servs.

282 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 16, 2017

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 case "if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to … believe that their acts did not violate these clearly established rights."

Better Broadview Party v. Walters

159 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … “A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was clearly established.” Id.

Nitschneider v. Miller

821 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity 4 Next, Miller contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages relating to the disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity serves to shield officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability, unless their decisions violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. 5 Harlow v.

Kay v. Frerichs

2021 IL App (1st) 192271 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 2021

In 1996, Congress authorized the states to establish “qualified tuition plans,” commonly known as 529 plans, that allow individuals to make contributions to tax-free investment accounts in order to pay for … Kay further establishes that sovereign immunity applies to this case.

Smith v. United States

723 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1989

In the case at bar, the statutory and constitutional rights which Defendants allegedly violated were clearly established and a reasonable person would have known of them. … Thus, the Defendants are not entitled to rely on a defense of qualified immunity in this case.

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

2017 IL App (1st) 161574 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 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. … actions were not immunized pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act

Ruffino v. Sheahan

61 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1999

The defense of qualified immunity was first raised in the motion to dismiss. … The reasons for the court’s denial of qualified immunity are clearly stated in its court’s opinion on qualified immunity.

Lela v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2024

Thus, whether on the merits or via qualified immunity, which requires a plaintiff to establish a constitutional violation, see Reed v. … Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2018) (immunity attaches where there is no constitutional violation even if right was clearly established), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Spalding v. City of Chicago

24 F. Supp. 3d 765 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2014

Qualified Immunity Kirby also argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 59 at 7. … “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 person

King v. Evans

230 F. Supp. 3d 874 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 2016

The law of qualified immunity is easily summarized. … “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, meaning that they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Kozar v. Munoz

230 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 59 at 13-14. “Two central questions must be addressed in the course of determining whether qualified immunity is available.” … But for qualified immunity purposes, the distinction makes no difference; a detainee’s right to be free from deliberate indifference was clearly established under both sets of circumstances.

A.G. ex rel. Sassak v. City of Park Ridge

198 F. Supp. 3d 856 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 2016

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right by showing that the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person would have known of the unconstitutionality of the conduct at issue.”).