Case law

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

Mirshak v. Joyce

652 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 1987

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the government official from liability for civil damages insofar as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, Joyce has failed to establish or even argue that the actions he took were of an executive or administrative nature and therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

K.H. Ex Rel. Murphy v. Suter

765 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1991

The court denied that portion of defendants’ motion which sought dismissal on qualified immunity grounds pursuant to Harlow v. … On September 24, 1990, the Seventh Circuit affirmed this court’s qualified immunity ruling in part and remanded the case to this court to “determine how much of the [first amended] complaint survives our analysis of immunity

Bass v. Cook County Hospital

2015 IL App (1st) 142665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 2015

However, we disagree with Bass’s position that this fact establishes that the Act did not intend to provide civil immunity for Dr. … ILCS 50/3.150(c) (West 2012)) and 3.150(g) (210 ILCS 50/3.150(g) (West 2012)) establish the Act’s intention to limit immunity.

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.

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.

Hoffman v. DeWitt County

176 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2016

; (3) Markwell does not have qualified immunity in his individual capacity because clearly established in the law prohibits Markman’s alleged retaliation against Hoffman; (4) Markwell does not have immunity under the Noerr-Pennington … Markwell is not protected by qualified immunity because his alleged actions violate clearly established law.

Nelson v. City of Elmhurst

691 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1988

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Nelson has the burden of establishing that Officer Kazarian violated a constitutional right that was clearly established on May 8, 1987. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988).

Spiegel v. Cortese

966 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1997

Qualified Immunity The availability of qualified immunity is generally a legal question for the court to decide “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Forman v. … Despite this clearly established law, Córtese and Kajari would still be entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have mistakenly believed that there was probable cause to arrest Spiegel.

Yoder v. Ryan

318 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … These are clearly established rights any reasonable person would be aware of. Mr. Frederking has not established that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Anchor Organization for Health Maintenance

210 Ill. App. 3d 418 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Clearly, these cases are distinguishable from the present case, where plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against Anchor on June 28, 1987, at a time when Anchor was entitled to the immunity granted to it under section … under a dual capacity as a State-certified and federally qualified HMO as well as a voluntary health service plan.

Williams v. Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc.

553 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 1, 2008

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Court need not consider, then, whether the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established on August 27, 2005. Eberhart is entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment, on Count III. B.

Chan v. City of Chicago

777 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 9, 1991

The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Chan’s transfer that it was unconstitutional. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Hosty v. Governors State University

174 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from monetary liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … However, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants’ conduct constitutes editorial control, and clearly violates established First Amendment law. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

McGarvey v. Biswell

993 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy immunity from personal liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To conclude that the search and arrest in this case violated clearly established law based on the uninterpreted language of these statutes would rim afoul of the principle that “public officials are entitled to immunity unless

Bey v. Cimarossa

36 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 19, 1999

Qualified immunity attaches if an officer’s conduct does not violate a “clearly established” right of which “a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Alternatively, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to show the existence of any clearly established law of which the officers should have known when they acted.

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.”).

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.

Puccini v. United States

978 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 1997

Plaintiff does not dispute the inapplicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, but she contends that those defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and that her due process rights were violated. We disagree. … Plaintiff characterizes the clearly-established right that was violated as the right not to be detained beyond the expiration of her sentence.

Gwin v. Curry

161 F.R.D. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 1995

AD 1 seeks to assert qualified immunity for Curry because “a reasonable police officer in the position of the Defendant reasonably could have believed that his conduct was within the constitutional limits that were clearly … established at the time.”