Case law

Dixon v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53

366 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2019

. 5 In general, qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages " 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity. 6 C.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

Hill v. Quigley

336 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2018

Plaintiff also argues that references to "immunity" within the charge improperly invited the jury to speculate on the question of qualified immunity. The word "immunity" appeared twice in my charge. … The reference to "immunity" did not muddle the applicable legal standards. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court, see Hunter v.

Nowak v. Szwedo

704 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1989

qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity relieves them of liability because at the time of their alleged actions there was no established case law upholding a First Amendment claim for retaliation as petty and far removed

Clayborne v. Brown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

violation; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education

169 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for their actions in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, once a claim of qualified immunity has been raised, a plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

305 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman, 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

McGreal v. AT & T Corp.

892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012

Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987

Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Allen v. Kevin Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.

Britt v. Anderson

21 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional *970 rights of which a reasonable person would … Count I *974 is dismissed because Anderson did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Grove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Commission

642 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 1986

All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 2. … Qualified Immunity All defendants seek insulation from Section 1983 damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

Murray v. Poani

980 N.E.2d 1275 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity ¶ 33 Defendants contend if we conclude the trial court erred in determining no issue of material fact exists, we should hold plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. ¶ 34 … the constitutional right was clearly established.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2024

Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 734–35 (7th Cir. 2014) 5 Defendants again assert that qualified immunity precludes Wright from proceeding on his § 1983 claim. … LeVan, 967 F.3d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

Saiger v. City of Chicago

37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Liska v. Dart

60 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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 … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court considers “(1) whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at