Case law

Grimes v. County Of Cook

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

“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 … would have known. … A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at

Marsh-Leigh

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 2025

Qualified immunity The individual City defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law holding unlawful a three-month … Qualified immunity rests on two fact-dependent inquiries: whether an official violated a statutory or constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

Romero

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026

Plaintiff also argues that Forlenza does not enjoy qualified immunity because his use of excessive force violated a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity Defendants have also failed to show that Forlenza is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States ex rel. Yannacopoulos v. General Dynamics

235 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 1, 2006

Clearly, immunity from discovery for opinion work product is absolute or nearly absolute. Caremark, 195 at 616. III. … There, the documents were clearly disclosure statements and the parties agreed that Lockheed was entitled to the documents with the opinion work product redacted.

Hall v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

122 Ill. 2d 448 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 1988

Such a requirement is clearly inconsistent with this court’s previous interpretations of the Contribution Act. … The court noted that an employer’s statutory immunity from an employee’s tort action is an affirmative defense and may be waived by the employer.

Repaskey v. Chicago Transit Authority

9 Ill. App. 3d 897 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 12, 1973

That case involved Section 8 — 102 of the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … Nevertheless we feel constrained to follow what remains the established law of this state. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. ENGLISH and LORENZ, JJ., concur. * § 341.

People v. Mason

1 Ill. App. 3d 302 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 16, 1971

The constitutional prohibition being against unreasonable searches and seizures, no immunity from search is given on the occasion of a lawful arrest. People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400 , 137 N.E.2d 820 ; Harris v. … The circumstances shown by the evidence here so clearly fail to meet the test of reasonableness that it is not necessary to analyze the rule.

Cunningham v. Eyman

11 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1998

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the United States is generally immune from suits both at law and in equity unless it expressly waives such immunity and consents to be sued. See, e.g., United States v. … Keeping-in conformity with the law of sovereign immunity, however, such suits may be brought against federal officers only in their individual capacities, unless the plaintiff can establish that the United States has consented

The People v. Tilton

357 Ill. 47 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1934

The same authorities establish the principle that an agreement to do an act made unlawful by statute may be a common law conspiracy. … They say, in effect, that under established rules of strict construction applicable to penal and criminal laws, a penalty is not incurred unless the act that subjects one to it is clearly within the letter and spirit of the

Board of Education of Community Unit School District 201-U v. Pomeroy

47 Ill. App. 3d 468 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 14, 1977

The trial court concluded that the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act clearly applies to any public employees and to any act or omission by them in the execution or enforcement of any law. … The 12% interest penalty was established as a means of achieving this objective.

Craig v. Peterson

39 Ill. 2d 191 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1968

While the necessity of, and legislative authority to establish, reasonable rules assuring the honest and orderly conduct of elections is obvious, it is apparent from the above cases that statutory requirements which, absent … It is further apparent that in construing statutory provisions regulating elections the courts generally have tended to hold directory those requirements as to which the legislature has not clearly indicated a contrary intention

Matarese v. Buka

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2008

On appeal, a trial court will not be reversed "for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant." Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 274. … App. 3d at 566. 12 1-06-2276 On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court's hybrid instruction was not error but, rather, a correct statement of the law that clearly

Riley El v. Rauner

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “arising from actions within the scope of their employment unless their conduct violated ‘clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was “clearly established.” Farnham, 394 F.3d at 477.

Stewart v. United States

486 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 1980

It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operation. … Clearly the decision to sell asbestos involved policy considerations at the highest levels and that decision cannot result in tort liability for the Government.

Beaman v. Freesmeyer

2019 IL 122654 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 9, 2019

malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Town of Normal. ¶ 15 The district court dismissed claims against Souk and Reynard based on absolute or qualified … immunity.

Cobden Unit School District No. 17 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

966 N.E.2d 503 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2012

It clearly can ***.” Niles Township, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 33. … However, the majority fails to explain how full disclosure would impair the District’s duty to ensure the selection of the most qualified teachers.

Robert E. v. Lane

530 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 1981

The well-pleaded allegations clearly establish that practically no mental health care delivery system exists at Stateville at all. … Potential Good Faith Defenses The request for monetary damages implicates an additional issue, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Iqbal Jafree v. Scott

372 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1974

The complaint insofar as it seeks damages against the named defendants individually is barred by the doctrine of Public Officials Immunity. … The property rights of state employees in their employment is defined and established in the Illinois Personnel Code, Chapter 127, Section 63bl08b et seq.

Denton v. CIVIL SERVICE COM'N OF STATE

277 Ill. App. 3d 770 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 1996

When the Director establishes eligible lists on the basis of category ratings such as 'superior’, 'excellent’, 'well-qualified’, and 'qualified’, the veteran eligibles in each such category shall be preferred for appointment … Section 8b.7(f) of the Code clearly is intended to do something other than add "points” when the lists are grouped according to category ratings.

Gill v. Village of Melrose Park

35 F. Supp. 3d 956 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2014

Because Migliore’s limited use of force was objectively reasonable, and he had probable cause to effectuate the seizure, there is no need to address his argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Tucker v. … Williams, 682 F.3d 654, 660 (7th Cir.2012) (“Because we do not find a constitutional violation, we need not and do not address Williams' qualified immunity defense.”)..