Case law

Anderson v. Cornejo

225 F. Supp. 2d 834 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2002

Alternatively, defendants generally assert they would be entitled to qualified immunity as to the damages claims because any law under which they might be held liable was not clearly established as of the pertinent time. … immunity because the law underlying such claims was not clearly established. 24 *847 II.

Lubowsky v. Skokie Valley Community Hospital

79 Ill. App. 3d 909 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 26, 1979

With respect to the first point, the University argues that the rule of law is long established and well recognized which considers a judgment entered by consent to be an agreement by the parties which cannot be vacated on … 1977, ch. 110, par. 72), as was done in the present case, the court having stated: “Before the enactment of this provision, consent decrees could be collaterally attacked only through bills of review and were specifically immune

People v. Jackson

145 Ill. App. 3d 626 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1986

The court held that this experience qualified the investigator as an expert, and citing People v. Lamprey (1979), 79 Ill. … The court opined that a grant of immunity or a plea bargain received by a witness is not sufficient reason for an accomplice’s testimony to be disbelieved, especiaUy where a jury has resolved the credibility issue by its

Collins v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

407 Ill. App. 3d 979 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2011

a civilian employee, did not qualify for credit as prior other service. … of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.

People v. Mortenson

224 Ill. App. 221 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 23, 1922

It is clearly not only within his power but the duty of the State’s Attorney to file a nolle prosequi or confession of error in any criminal case where in his judgment he may conclude that further prosecution of the case … The contumacy being thus impliedly admitted, respondents seek immunity in certain rules of practice.

Pena v. Chicago Police Department

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2023

But the same factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It has long been clearly established that the use of “significant force is unreasonable” if it is unprovoked or provoked only by passive resistance.

Soto v. Salgado

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2023

But the same factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It has long been clearly established that the use of “significant force is unreasonable” if it is unprovoked or provoked only by passive resistance.

City of Chicago v. Weber

260 Ill. 105 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1913

The word “roadways,” as used in the resolution, does not necessarily mean that part of the legally established street which had previously been improved and used by the public. … Objections such as these must be determined largely by the opinions of witnesses qualified to testify in regard thereto.

Smith v. West Suburban Medical Center

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 21, 2010

(West 2006)), he was immune from liability under various provisions of that statute. Also on May 1, 2007, Triton filed its answer to count I of Smith’s complaint. … In construing a contract, this court is guided by the following well-established principles. When interpreting a contract, a court’s objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties. Carey v.

Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel

2011 IL App (2d) 100565 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2011

We conclude that they did not and that, therefore, the Act’s immunity provision is not triggered. … If the legislature intended to condition the Act’s qualified immunity on alterations in the “character” of the surrounding area, and not on “any” changed conditions in the surrounding area, it could have expressed

Chi v. Loyola University Medical Center

787 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2011

This law, however, does not “[c]reate any privileges or immunities or otherwise affect, limit or preclude any privileges or immunities authorized by law.” A.R.S. § 12-752(E)(3). … As the Arizona Supreme Court has recognized, Milkovich established this standard for statements that relate to a matter of public concern.

Alter v. Starbucks Corp.

306 Ill. Dec. 873 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 10, 2006

In holding that sovereign immunity did not shield the State-employed physician from immunity, the Kiersch court stated, “[T]he duty plaintiff alleges that defendant breached in this case arose independently of her State employment … This language clearly indicates that the Agreement was not intended to make the University liable for all matters arising out of its operation of the Starbucks store.

Cunningham v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … was not clearly established.

Palmer v. Chicago Park District

277 Ill. App. 3d 282 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 1995

The court should not dismiss a complaint under section 2 — 615 unless it clearly appears no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings that would entitle plaintiff to relief. (Johnson v. George J. … Section 3 — 106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) states that a local public entity, such as defendant Chicago Park District, is not liable for an injury on public

Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc.

429 Ill. Dec. 32 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2018

Id. at 406-07 (dismissing appeal but entering supervisory order to direct circuit court to vacate clearly erroneous interlocutory order). … Plaintiff asserts, for example, that UHS is the only remaining entity that remains eligible to claim the immunity, while UHS argues that two additional entities also still qualify.

Nichols v. Fahrenkamp

113 N.E.3d 1183 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 2018

¶ 23 As noted in the majority opinion, while alluding to both qualified and absolute immunity of attorney Fahrenkamp, as plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, the majority concludes that attorney Fahrenkamp is not entitled … ¶ 25 The majority’s disposition denying any form of immunity, absolute or quasi-qualified, runs counter to sound authority and reads Vlastelica v. Brend, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587, too narrowly.

Wabash Railroad v. Henks

91 Ill. 406 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1878

This is the practice established by the act of 1877. … The instruction should have been qualified by stating the rule of comparative negligence, or by referring to the fifth of appellee’s instructions.

Mutual Medical Plans, Inc. v. County of Peoria

309 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2004

The first Croiuley factor, whether the government knew of or acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, clearly weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs. … Legal history aside, the policy reasons for absolute grand jury immunity are also persuasive.

Brown v. Hurd

41 Ill. 121 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

Thompson, he was held qualified because his evidence would not have that effect. These two cases recognize the same rule, and it is clear and of easy application. … This is the rule established by the current of authorities. Brown v. Brown, 4 Taunt. 752; Ripley v. Thompson, 12 Moore, 55; Marshall v. Thrakill, 12 Ohio, 275; Marquand v. Webb, 16 Johns. 89 ; Purviance v.

People v. Williams

120 Ill. App. 3d 244 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 7, 1983

Grant’s statement was clearly corroborated by other evidence. The statement was also clearly against his interest. … Grant himself was in custody and therefore was available for cross-examination, although a grant of immunity for these proceedings might have been necessary.