Case law

Torres v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2021

Defendant Officers Keating and Horton Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The right to be free of the warrantless search of a home when an occupant expressly refuses consent is clearly established. See Georgia v.

Villa v. Franzen

511 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1981

Franzen and Reed are entitled to a qualified immunity shielding them from damage liability under Section 1983, because Villa has failed to demonstrate that their allegedly injurious actions were “intentional.” … And such proof would satisfy Monell . 8 Finally, this Court does not accept Commission’s contention that a “passive” custom 9 — mere acquiescence in illegal actions on the part of its employees — cannot serve to establish

People v. English

2014 IL App (1st) 102732-B · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 2014

court incorporated “by reference the evidentiary hearing on the other case, [the Lewis murder].” ¶ 30 This court affirmed the trial court’s denial of leave to file, finding English’s petition failed to establish … To qualify as newly discovered evidence, the evidence must have been unavailable at trial and could not have been discovered sooner through due diligence. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d at 154.

Anthony

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified Immunity with Respect to Counts 7, 8, 9 & 10 “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at … If she had, however, this Court holds that Dollison would be entitled to qualified immunity as to the Equal Protection Clause claim against her and that Dollison, Bickel, and Benway would be entitled to qualified immunity

Arteman v. CLINTON COM. UNIT SCHOOL DIST.

198 Ill. 2d 475 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2002

establish willful and wanton misconduct, an exception to section 3-108(a) immunity. … The public policy considerations in authorizing, and indeed encouraging, teachers to have broad discretion and latitude in the former situation quite clearly do not apply with as much force to the latter.

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.

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.

People v. Ramirez

98 Ill. 2d 439 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1983

“DEATH QUALIFICATION” OF THE JURY The defendant maintains that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing because, while the trial judge “death qualified” the jury sua sponte, he failed to also “life qualify” the jury. … In any event, the State argues that the defendant cannot now complain that the evidence was unreliable because the source was never established, where the defendant himself prevented the prosecution from establishing its

Livingston v. Ogilvie

43 Ill. 2d 9 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1969

Ct. 1908 ,) which eventually culminated in our establishing the provisional senatorial districts in People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner, 33 Ill.2d 11 . … The loyalty oath prescribed in section 5 of the Act is clearly unconstitutional.

Miller v. National Ass'n of Realtors

271 Ill. App. 3d 653 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1995

premises through acts of third persons, the time element to establish knowledge or notice to the proprietor is a material factor.” … Clearly, these are facts which, if proven, would go directly to the issues of notice and due care and, ultimately, of negligence. See Maschhoff v. National Super Markets, Inc. (1992), 230 Ill.

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.

Lockhart v. Adams

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 2023

Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the foregoing, White is also entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Dynasty System Corp.

128 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 1984

The eradication of such fraudulent schemes is clearly a legitimate and important State interest. … Under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and public officials’ immunity, the defendants are barred from recovering monetary damages. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 127, par. 801; People ex rel. Scott v.

Valentine v. Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice

544 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 13, 1982

Those who clearly stand out above the rest of the ‘highly qualified’ are the ‘best qualified.’ DEA Manual at ¶ 0633.42(D)(6)(d) (Mar. 13, 1980) (emphasis supplied). … Defendants’ argument with respect to Valentine’s asserted failure to establish a prima facie case is that he has not shown that he was among the best qualified candidates for the positions he sought.

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.

Boner v. Drazek

55 Ill. 2d 279 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1973

Such qualifying examinations shall be of the same kind as those required for entrance examinations for comparable positions. … The verification clearly declares that the allegations are true “to the best of his [affiant’s] knowledge ***.”

Tidwell v. Asselmeier

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants Henderson and Walls are entitled to qualified immunity.

County of Lake v. La Salle National Bank

76 Ill. App. 3d 179 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 21, 1979

“Customary” is defined in dictionary terms: agreeing with custom, commonly practiced, used or observed or established by common usage. … maintenance of a house trailer on defendants’ golf course as sleeping quarters for groundskeepers qualifies as a valid accessory use under the Lake County zoning ordinance.

Braswell v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad

60 Ill. App. 2d 120 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 1965

That is clearly what he' intends for you to believe. I see no reason to hem and haw around about it.” The substance of the letter from Dr. … Gross, after being qualified as an expert witness, testified that at the request of the Federal Social Security Agency, he examined plaintiff-in 1959 to determine if plaintiff qualified as disabled.

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.