Case 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).

Angara v. City of Chicago

897 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 1995

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Biddle v. … The Seventh Circuit has set out the following two-step inquiry to determine if qualified immunity applies: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

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.

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.

Diamond v. Chulay

811 F. Supp. 1321 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is appropriate here because the position that Diamond held is not clearly established as one requiring protection from a termination based on political reasons.

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.

Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center

82 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity We begin our analysis of qualified immunity with a brief description of the parties in this case. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), established that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from damages as long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established

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

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

Hagan v. Quinn

84 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity does not defeat a claim for injunctive relief, as Plaintiffs point out.

Lynch v. Devine

45 Ill. App. 3d 743 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 1977

The plaintiff, as a contractor, is thus clearly not one for whose benefit the statute was enacted. … Defendant Bond, also, is not immune from suit by reason of sovereign immunity under “An Act in relation to immunity for the State of Illinois” (Ill. Rev.

ESM Development Corp. v. Dawson

342 Ill. App. 3d 688 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 6, 2003

If not, and if the claims are therefore actually legal in nature, then the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. … This hotel was developed under the understanding that it, and thus the plaintiffs, qualified for enterprise zone benefits.

McGreal v. Ostrov

227 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 2002

Qualified Immunity: Saucier recently reiterated that qualified immunity is a two step analysis. See 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Snooks are also entitled to qualified immunity because the law surrounding McGreal’s claim was not clearly established at the time of the events. On this point, the Supreme Court’s Saucier analysis is critical.

Kirkman v. Latkowski

768 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 10, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendant also has moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs Marlon and *241 Indya Kirkman’s Fourth Amendment vehicle search claims based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

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.”

Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency

238 Ill. 2d 262 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

Clearly, Bi-State is a form of “local government body” as referenced in section 1 — 206 of the Tort Immunity Act. See F. Zimmerman & M. … Clearly, the one-year statute of limitations provided by section 8 — 101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act furthers or supports Bi-State and does not burden it. 1.

Johnson v. Collins

58 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Doctrine Applied As noted, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges the deprivation of a constitutional right, a right that was “clearly established” when the state … The second prong of the Kemats qualified immunity test is likewise satisfied because the right to suitable foster care placement was “clearly established” in K.H. ex rel Murphy v.

Bisbee ex rel. Bisbee v. Reynard

29 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1998

Furthermore, district courts cannot establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir.1995). … Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden of showing the existence of the clearly established constitutional right. Id.

Alm v. Moreth

694 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 1988

and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question? Wade v. Hegner, 804 F.2d 67, 70 (7th Cir. 1986). … We thérefore find it unnecessary to ascertain whether the shocks-the-conscience standard was clearly established in April 1985.

David v. Village of Oak Lawn

954 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for section 1983 liability, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at