Case law

Kocsis v. Chicago Park District

362 Ill. 24 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1935

Justice Wilson delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff, Joseph Kocsis, a qualified tax-payer of the former West Pullman Park District, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against the Chicago Park … The fourth contention is that the Assumption act is a special act granting irrevocable privileges and immunities.

The PEOPLE v. Speice

23 Ill. 2d 40 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1961

In Shambley we said, 4 Ill.2d 38, 42 , “the rule seems to be well established that where two persons have equal rights to the use or occupation of premises, either may give consent to a search and the evidence thus disclosed … Therefore, if the defendant’s wife freely consented to a search of the premises, the consent was sufficient to waive the defendant’s immunity.

The PEOPLE v. Haskell

41 Ill. 2d 25 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1968

Accordingly, the consent by a defendant’s wife to a search of an apartment jointly owned or occupied by them has been held sufficient to waive her husband’s constitutional immunity. (People v. … It follows that we are bound to accept the testimony given by the police detectives as true because it cannot be said that it is clearly unreasonable.

Plummer v. Belford

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity shielding “government officials from civil damages liability unless … “To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time

Anderson v. Beach

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2008

He argues that conditional privilege—also known as qualified privilege—does not apply and even if it did, Beach abused the privilege by recklessly failing to investigate the truth of her statements. … Once a defendant establishes conditional privilege, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show an abuse of the privilege. Gist v. Macon County Sheriff's Department, 284 Ill.

Koehler v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 27, 1996

One thing that the Warsaw Convention did not mean to do was to grant international air carriers absolute immunity from their negligence inside the terminal." … Clearly, under Article 1, a contract claim based on the ticket which provided for international transportation falls within the scope of the Convention.

Drew v. Collins

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2025

Plaintiff does not cite a single analogous case which suggests the DCFS Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage is consistent with the Supreme Court's directive to resolve immunity issues at the earliest possible time “because qualified immunity

Abbott Laboratories v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp.

200 F.R.D. 401 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2001

Abbott further points to a Northern District of Illinois case that clearly states the position of Illinois courts on choice of law with regard to privilege. … Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 509 F.2d 730, 735 (4th Cir.1974)(holding opinion work product to be absolutely immune from discovery).

Young v. County of Cook

616 F. Supp. 2d 834 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 2009

Qualified immunity The Sheriff Defendants filed a second summary judgment motion contending they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “[I]t is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims.” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 , 732 (7th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted).

The People v. Sterling

357 Ill. 354 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1934

Curtis and others were his bondsmen, and that he duly qualified and served as such State Treasurer, receiving a salary of $10,000 per annum therefor and not entitled to any other profit or income from said office. … It is clearly established in this State that it cannot. In the case of Mathias v. Mathias, 202 Ill. 125 , the parties were husband and wife.

Cooley v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago

761 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2011

Summary Judgment Standard Every Rule 56 movant bears the burden of establishing 2 the absence of any genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp. v. … and (2) that Azcoitia is immune from liability in any event (D.

Howard v. Board of Educ. Sycamore Dist.

876 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 8, 1995

Further, Welcker argues he is protected by qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position would not have considered the student misconduct to be unconstitutional and because no clearly established law made … Plaintiff also posits that the issue of qualified immunity is premature as it depends on facts outside the complaint and that the law regarding Welcker’s responsibilities was clearly established at the time of his alleged

Stahl v. Village of Hoffman Estates

296 Ill. App. 3d 550 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 1998

Privileges and Immunities Clause The privileges and immunities clause provides that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” U.S. Const., art. … The Hoffman Estates transfer tax does not violate the privileges and immunities clause. 3.

McCarthy v. United States

563 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 10, 1983

The ease is now before this Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in which defendants have raised a number of immunity and statutory defenses. … The defendant denies any bad faith conduct on his part and raises as a defense the doctrine of immunity in all its forms — sovereign, absolute, and qualified.

Boyle v. Torres

756 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2010

Finally, even assuming that Martin and Darling lacked probable cause to arrest Boyle, they would be protected by qualified immunity. … Unlike in the case of the UCPD Officers, there is no doubt that CPD Officers can invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. E.g., Carmichael v.

Ruppel v. Ramseyer

33 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 1999

If a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for DUI, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Kelley, 149 F.3d at 648 ; Edwards v. … This interpretation is also consistent with the well established case law cited previously by this court.

People v. Grayer

403 Ill. App. 3d 797 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2010

upon a new qualifying conviction or disposition. … App. 3d 127, 130 (2009)), the “possibility of an unjust or absurd result is generally not enough to avoid the application of a clearly worded statute.” Petersen v. Wallach, 198 Ill. 2d 439, 447 (2002).

Ralston v. Rauner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 26, 2022

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants contend that qualified immunity protects Defendants from liability. … “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.”

People Ex Rel. Rappaport v. Drazek

30 Ill. App. 3d 310 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1975

Stat. 1969, ch. 127, pars. 63b101 et seq.), clearly gives the Director of Personnel the power and discretion to add to current eligible lists. … Suffice it to say that a reading of both provisions clearly reveals no such limitation. Consequently, respondents cannot be restricted to any such procedure.

Curtis v. Chicago Transit Authority

341 Ill. App. 3d 573 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 23, 2003

Although Saragusa was decided under now-repealed section 8 — 102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. Rev. … Plaintiff here was represented by counsel, who was clearly aware of the requirements of section 41, but failed to comply with those requirements.