Case law

Grimes v. County Of Cook

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Judkins’s reply brief suggests that only Supreme Court decisions can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Doc. 142 at 4 n.1.

Estate of Cassara v. Illinois

843 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 2, 1994

Personal knowledge and involvement of the superior are essential for establishing individual liability under § 1983. See Gibson v. … immunity.

Fox v. Adams & Associates, Inc.

2020 IL App (1st) 182470 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 22, 2021

Causation is not established if the basis for the discharge is valid and nonpretextual. … Moreover, several intervening events establish that retaliation was not a plausible motive for discharging her.

Cunningham v. EQUICKEDIT CORP. OF ILLINOIS

256 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2003

Moore told Elizabeth that she had to show that she had a job in order to qualify for the loan. (Id. ¶ 30.) … Under Illinois law, it is well-established that where a lender has complied with TILA, the lender is immune from state law claims for fraud or misrepresentation arising from the same loan documents and associated disclosures

McKibben v. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank

365 Ill. 369 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1937

Mc-Kibben was duly admitted to probate and record and the bank therein named as executor qualified and entered upon its duties as trustee. … An estate will vest at the earliest possible time, and will be held to vest at the death of the testator unless some later time is clearly expressed in the will or appears by necessary implication. (Stevens v.

The People v. Barnett

347 Ill. 127 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1931

The testimony constituted a link in a chain of circumstances to establish the conspiracy and was relevant to the issue. … them the immunity bath.”

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board

284 Ill. 378 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1918

Having established a fixed compensation against employers under the act, section 3 places those employers under the act and those rejecting it on the same level as to defenses, by providing that in any action to recover damages … It is true that Adrian had been exposed to practically the same conditions for many years without injury, but it would not be unreasonable to conclude that his immunity was because of the state of his health and his ability

American Agriculture Movement, Inc. v. Board of Trade

770 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 10, 1991

] are well established. … The CEA clearly states that the decision about whether an “emergency” exists is to made solely by the contract market.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

2014 IL App (1st) 130544 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2014

Instead, the party must show that the opposite conclusion was clearly evident. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 289 Ill. … Furthermore, ComEd does not show that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.

Wells v. Travis

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1996

The court reasoned: "Holding that the limitation period is not triggered until a prospective malpractice plaintiff secures an expert witness qualified to testify to the described necessary elements for a prima facie case … would clearly extend the limitation period unduly and leave the four-year period of section 13--212, after which a defendant has absolute repose, as the only substantial protection that such a defendant would have against

Griffin v. Coler

667 F. Supp. 1233 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1986

Statements in the majority opinions in these three cases indicate that the Eleventh Amendment grants states immunity from federal court jurisdiction in all suits except those in which one of the well-established exceptions … Recent scholarship indicates that the framers never intended to constitutionalize the doctrine of state sovereign immunity; consequently, the Eleventh Amendment was not an effort to re-establish, after Chisholm v.

Piccioli v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System

2019 IL 122905 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2020

Advancement of the State’s economic goals clearly is a legitimate rationale for legislation. … We concluded, “there is no reason ‘for restricting the advantages’ of the legislation to a district with characteristics currently qualifying and ‘not extending the same advantages to those districts’ qualifying

Ogunleye v. Bedolla

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 ‘for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because the law was clear at the time and the record is incomplete, the Court cannot find that Defendant Hurtado is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Jones v. Linn

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants move for qualified immunity on any claims that survive summary judgment, arguing that they did not violate clearly established rights. … Governmental officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

People v. Scott

22 Ill. App. 3d 770 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 14, 1973

The record clearly shows that there was no attempt to qualify the officer himself as an expert witness on controlled substances, and in fact the officer never tested the alleged dangerous drugs himself. … These cases clearly differ from the case at bar.

Minor v. Comstock

78 Ill. App. 3d 933 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 1979

Farrell indicated that neither 18 — 10 nor 18 — 14 established any legislative intent as to the ultimate impact of the Federal estate tax burden. … When the doctrine of equitable apportionment is applied in the instant case, it clearly calls for computation of the surviving spouse’s elective share of the entire estate before any deduction is made for payment or computation

Arts Club of Chicago v. Dept. of Revenue

334 Ill. App. 3d 235 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 27, 2002

The Department contends, however, that review of the evidence related to the remaining Korzen factors establishes that the Club did not qualify as an institution of public charity. … clearly and convincingly that it was entitled to an exemption.

Ludlow v. Northwestern University

79 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 5, 2015

Because the Complaint does not clearly warrant a finding of preemption, the Court *835 will not dismiss with prejudice at this stage. B. … Qualified privilege is an affirmative defense that a plaintiff need not anticipate in his pleading; however, once qualified immunity has been identified, a plaintiff may overcome this challenge at the pleading stage by alleging

Bertetto v. Sparta Community Unit District No. 140

188 Ill. App. 3d 954 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 27, 1989

A cause should not be dismissed on the grounds that the pleadings fail to state a cause of action unless, clearly, no set of facts could be proven under the pleadings which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. … We believe that these allegations, if true, would establish such a “reckless disregard for the safety of others” as to constitute wilful and wanton misconduct within the meaning of Hadley ( 123 Ill.

People v. Gilliam

16 Ill. App. 3d 659 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 1974

The cases of Ramirez and Tillman are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … As we interpret the cases it is apparent that only a qualified psychiatrist, not a psychologist, could give an opinion as to the sanity of a defendant. (See People v. Noble, 42 Ill.2d 425 , 248 N.E.2d 96 .)