Case law

Hosty v. Governors State University

174 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from monetary liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … However, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants' conduct constitutes editorial control, and clearly violates established First Amendment law. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Sims v. Schultz

305 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2004

Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the complaint alleges facts which, if proven, would amount to a constitutional violation, and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Lynn and Schultz argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because even “[assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation ... the applicable constitutional standards were not clearly established

Panozzo v. Rhoads

711 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 10, 1989

Nonetheless, regardless of whether such conduct constitutes a due process violation, qualified immunity shields defendants from liability. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors

362 Ill. Dec. 484 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2012

Other provisions clearly provide blanket immunity for all conduct by immunizing liability for any injury, without exception. … This court rejected that argument, finding that section 2-202 was not a general exception to all the other immunities established by the Act, and that section 2-202 provided immunity only where the public employee

BISBEE, BY BISBEE v. Reynard

29 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1998

Furthermore, district courts cannot establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir.1995). … . § 1983 , the arresting officers are immune from liability "if a reasonable police officer could have believed [the plaintiff's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Choice v. YMCA of McHenry County

976 N.E.2d 584 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 17, 2012

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that the applicable immunity provision was section 3-109 of the Tort Immunity Act, which provides qualified immunity for local public entities against participants in … Moreover, the party raising a constitutional challenge bears the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation. Boeckmann, 238 Ill. 2d at 6-7; Barnes v. Chicago Housing Authority, 326 Ill.

Colson v. Stieg

89 Ill. 2d 205 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1982

Medical quackery is an area of critical public concern which clearly qualifies under the Butts test as a subject ‘“about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies … However, we need not in this case decide whether plaintiff was a public figure or public official, because the facts justify following Farnsworth and holding that this case clearly qualifies under the Butts test as a subject

Rozsavolgyi v. City of Aurora

2016 IL App (2d) 150493 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 2016

Therefore, the City clearly cannot assert immunity with respect to plaintiff’s request for back pay, front pay, lost benefits, or reinstatement. See, e.g., Hertzberg v. … We agree with the City that the Tort Immunity Act clearly encompasses constitutional claims, including those brought under the Human Rights Act.15 ¶ 114 In Birkett, we quoted this passage from section 1-204,

White v. The City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2006

Hawes, whom the police first interviewed in October 1997, was clearly a known witness. … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001), the court addressed qualified, not absolute, immunity. -19- 1-06-1537 Furthermore, in Forsyth v.

Baser v. Tri-State Fire Protection District

69 F. Supp. 3d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

of qualified immunity. … But he has not shown that the right was clearly established.

Crue v. Aiken

204 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss earlier in this case, the University raised the issue of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time in question.”

Ross v. Mauro Chevrolet

308 Ill. Dec. 248 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2006

and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. … Defendants also contended that the officers’ establishment of probable cause provided them with qualified immunity against the section 1983 claims.

Jones-Huff v. Hill

208 F. Supp. 3d 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2016

“Determination of whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the violation of a constitutional right occurred and whether the unconstitutionality of an officer’s conduct was clearly established in the law at the … A grant of summary judgment for reasons of qualified immunity would not be appropriate. II.

Lombard Public Facilities Corp. v. Department of Revenue

378 Ill. App. 3d 921 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2008

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101.1 (West 2000)). … The burden to prove entitlement to the governmental body exemption was on LPFC, and it did not clearly establish that section 2 — 5(11) of the Retailers’ Tax Act applies to a corporate entity created by a governmental body

Dopkeen v. Whitaker

399 Ill. App. 3d 682 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2010

The court concluded, “Defendant was acting within the scope of his authority to terminate the plaintiff and such actions are protected by absolute immunity, and public official immunity.” … We note that this case also raises the issue whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded jurisdiction in this case.

Lake Point Tower Garage Ass'n v. Property Tax Appeal Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2004

The defendant municipality argued that section 3-106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) applied: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an … Springfield argued that the school was immune from the suit based on section 3-106.

Vickery v. Jones

856 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 1994

Qualified Immunity. … The state officials assert that this Court should dismiss plaintiffs claim for compensatory and punitive damages on qualified immunity grounds because the plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a clearly established

Naleway v. Agnich

386 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2008

The defendant has a qualified privilege to make the statements regarding the plaintiff [stc] and she did not abuse her privilege; and b. the defendant is immune from liability for making the statements regarding the plaintiff … The plaintiffs] assert[ ] that the defendant abused her qualified privilege and that she is not entitled to immunity under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.

ESM Development Corp. v. Dawson

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 6, 2003

If not, and if the claims are therefore actually legal in nature, then the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … This hotel was developed under the understanding that it, and thus the plaintiffs, qualified for enterprise zone benefits.

Mockbee v. Humphrey Manlift Company

2012 IL App (1st) 93189 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 18, 2012

While the plaintiffs challenge that each defendant qualifies for immunity under section 5(a), the plaintiffs do not assert that the statutory immunity claim is not properly before this court. See Murphy v. … The plaintiffs contend, “Section 5(a)’s construction requires particular showings in order to gain immunity, and Harris clearly has not met this burden.”