Case law

Gill-Richards v. Campanelli

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 2022

When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, courts ask whether “(1) [the officials] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … At the motion to dismiss stage, dismissal “is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’”

People v. Daniels

2025 IL App (1st) 230823 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2025

¶ 27 A person raising a constitutional challenge to a statute carries the heavy burden of rebutting the strong judicial presumption that statutes are constitutional and must clearly establish that the statute violates … Because defendant’s age at the time of his qualifying convictions is already established in the record, his as-applied challenge is reviewable on appeal. People v. Martin, 2018 IL App (1st) 152249, ¶¶ 12-13.

Stahl v. Village of Hoffman Estates

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 1998

The court must determine whether the State or local regulation imposes a burden on interstate commerce which clearly outweighs its potential benefits. See C & A Carbone , 511 U.S. at 390. … Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." U.S. Const., art.

Spearman Industries, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

138 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2001

Here, Diederich’s testimony is clearly pertinent to this case and will assist the trier of fact with its analysis of what caused the damage to the roof. … Thus,' clearly a genuine issue of material fact exists — namely, the actual cause of damage to the roof. Accordingly, the court denies St.

Glickman v. Maine-Niles Association of Special Recreation

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2020

That is, this Fourth Amendment claim still must be dismissed unless Plaintiff’s “constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … It was clearly established law, the Snell court reasoned, that the social workers could not rely on such information.

Williams v. State

49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 109 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Aug 28, 1996

In the present claim, the Claimant’s current condition is not clearly apparent from the diagnosis given by a medical specialist near the time of the injury. … Thus, Claimants counsel contends that $1,613.55 of the $2,000 award is subject to an attorneys lien and is therefore immunized from seizure to pay Claimants delinquent child support.

Stewart v. Ost

142 Ill. App. 3d 373 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1986

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should not be granted unless “it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle plaintiffs to recover,” and all properly pleaded facts must … Therefore, defendant cannot use his qualified privilege to shield himself from exemplary damages if it is established that he abused the privilege by acting contrary to the interests of the employer.

Miller v. Lake County Jail

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified immunity shields “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 … “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Northwest Disposal Co. v. Village of Fox Lake

119 Ill. App. 3d 546 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 1983

Northwest alleged in its amended complaint that although qualified and the lowest bidder, it was denied a contract for garbage disposal. … We recognize the very limited due process right for unsuccessful bidders as established under the rationale of Three Rivers.

Board of Education of Indian Prairie School District No. 204 v. Du Page County Election Comm'n.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 15, 2003

Defendants do not, however, attempt to establish the elements of judicial estoppel (see People v. Coffin , 305 Ill. … Moreover, since the abolition of sovereign immunity in this state (see Walker v.

R.L. Vollintine Construction, Inc. v. The Illinois Capital Development Board

2014 IL App (4th) 130824 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2014

. ¶ 26 Section 1 of the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (Immunity Act) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in the *** Claims Act *** the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court … .” 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2012). ¶ 27 The Claims Act created an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity under section 1 of the Immunity Act by permitting parties to raise monetary claims against the State

Beasley v. St. Mary's Hospital

200 Ill. App. 3d 1024 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1990

The rule which has been followed in this State is that when punitive damages are sought, actual malice must be established. (Erickson v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. (1984), 127 Ill. … Unlike the other defamation counts, counts VII and VIII assume the existence of a qualified privilege.

Schiessle v. Stephens

525 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1981

It will suffice if the challenged activity was clearly within the legislative intent. … The court went on to note, however, that an official’s ultra vires or bad faith actions may vitiate the immunity defense.

Giegoldt v. Condell Medical Center

328 Ill. App. 3d 907 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 4, 2002

Generally, however, a hospital’s failure to provide adequate restraints, including bed rails, can only be established by expert medical testimony. Therefore, these cases are treated as medical malpractice cases. … It appears at one point that the trial judge read section 2 — 622 aloud to clearly show what the statute required.

Tevlin v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

237 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 18, 2002

In that light, each of Tevlin’s claims that he was clearly more qualified than Odoucha is sought to be met by District’s advancement of other contentions. As District would have it: 1. … In that latter respect it cannot fairly be said that Tevlin failed the prima facie requirement of being “clearly more qualified” in Mills terms. 5 But even were that not so, Mills, 171 F.3d at 457 (internal quotation marks

Lyberger v. Snider

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 14, 2021

Qualified Immunity Officers are also afforded the extra layer of protection of qualified immunity. Thayer v. Chiczerski, 705 F.3d 237, 247 (7th Cir. 2012). … Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237.

Makowski v. United States

27 F. Supp. 3d 901 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 2014

Makowski argues that he has established a threat of imminent injury. … Makowski might be able to establish standing to seek an injunction against future immigration detainers or to require DHS to correct his records. See, e.g., Morales v. Chadbourne, C.A.

Montano v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1999

Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-104 (West 1994)) and struck paragraph 7(d) from the complaint. … On January 16, 1998, the City filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the City was immune from liability pursuant to section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 1994)).

Manning v. Hazekamp

211 Ill. App. 3d 119 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 1991

Thus, we stated this precluded the City of Urbana from tort liability immunity under the Act. … The evidence established that the “no parking” sign itself was 30.7 feet from the intersection while the first car was parked 36 feet from the intersection.

Sass v. Kramer

72 Ill. 2d 485 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1978

Although the suit is nominally against an officer of the State, John Kramer, *492 Secretary of Transportation, it clearly affects property of the State. … I cannot accept this premise in light of the evidence that established the State's abandonment of the *494 easement before plaintiff instituted the instant suit.