Case law

Walton v. Lyons

962 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 1997

Although the mistake was unfortunate, neither state stab utes nor case law clearly establishes a duty on the part of the State’s Attorney to correct such police records. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9005. … Therefore, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Finally, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the State’s Attorney for failing to prosecute the bar bouncer.

Sandholm v. Kuecker

356 Ill. Dec. 733 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2012

The legislative history of the Act further supports our conclusion that the legislature intended to target only meritless, retaliatory SLAPPs and did not intend to establish a new absolute or qualified privilege for defamation … In light of the severe penalties imposed on a plaintiff under the Act, we will not read into the statute an intent to establish a new, qualified privilege absent an explicit statement of such intent. ¶ 52 Several of the defendants

Azeez v. Fairman

604 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 1985

The defendants are not entitled to official immunity in this case. The plaintiffs, to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, must show that their rights were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … The reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct must be measured by reference to clearly established law. No *365 other circumstances are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. Harlow v.

Betts v. The City of Chicago

2013 IL App (1st) 123653 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 2014

July 1, 2002). ¶ 16 Plaintiff argues that the record does not support the order dismissing her case because answers to the interrogatories and Smith’s affidavit did not clearly establish that Smith was … We do not reach the ultimate question that surveillance does not qualify as executing or enforcing the law.

Saffold v. City of Calumet Park

47 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a public official is entitled to qualified immunity as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In this case, there can be no doubt that Saffold had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause.

Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

2019 IL 124283 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2019

If the answer is “no,” then the District has not established its affirmative defense of immunity under section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act. … of establishing discretionary immunity under sections 2-109 and 2-201.

White v. Village of Homewood

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 1996

White insists that the record "clearly reveals" the existence of issues of material fact. … This exercise of independent judgment qualifies as discretionary, and section 2-201 provides immunity for these discretionary actions.

James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC

236 N.E.3d 1111 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 17, 2023

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 744-45 (1982) (presidential immunity). In -6- 2023 IL App (2d) 220180 contrast, there is also “qualified” or “partial” immunity. … As with more challenging immunity questions, like this one, the trial court will be in the best position to evaluate the quantum of evidence necessary to determine whether a given defendant qualifies for the statutory immunity

Village of Lake Barrington v. Hogan

208 Ill. Dec. 705 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1995

Third-party defendants Bateman and Smith contend that they enjoyed qualified immunity from suit as public officials. … This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be

Edwards v. Two Unknown Male Chicago Police Officers

623 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2009

Qualified Immunity Government actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated constitutional rights.” Marion v.

Hamilton v. Thezan

710 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Milazzo v. O'CONNELL

925 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 26, 1996

Qualified Immunity The final argument to be addressed is the defendants’ contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Harder v. Village of Forest Park

466 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 2006

Finally, Cody argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … In Hildebrandt the Seventh Circuit set forth the methodology for determining qualified immunity. Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Saucier v.

Kumar v. Chicago Housing Authority

862 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

A staté official is immune from civil damages if *216 his or her actions are “objectively reasonable,”, i.e., if his or her conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity shields the arresting officer from suit if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Bogosian v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200

73 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 1999

Bogosian cannot establish the elements of an Illinois state tortious interference with contractual relations claim. … The defendants argue that the teachers’ statements were not tortious because they were protected by some (1) absolute or (2) qualified privilege or (3) the state Tort Immunity Act, and were in any event (4) admittedly true

Hamlyn v. Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District

986 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 23, 1997

This virus attacks cells in the immune system causing a progressive impairment of the immune system. Id. Individuals whose immune system is impaired by HIV become susceptible to opportunistic infections. Id. … Clearly, they did.

Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 502 v. Department of Professional Regulation

363 Ill. App. 3d 190 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 2006

There, the defendant, an employee of a community college, sought protection under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (111. Rev. … that might defeat such clearly expressed legislative intent.

Kainrath v. Grider

426 Ill. Dec. 302 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 2018

The defendants argue that both absolute and qualified privileges apply to Mr. … A qualified privilege is destroyed, however, where it has been abused. Id.

Richardson v. Miles

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

Government officials like the Cook County correctional officers here are protected by qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right; and [2] whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.”

Williams v. Brown

269 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2003

If the jury accepts the plaintiffs’ version of what occurred, qualified immunity would not protect the officers; the need for individualized suspicion prior to a search for weapons has been clearly established doctrine for … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil suit based on their discretionary functions except where such conduct violated ‘clearly established’ federal law.” Burns v. Reed, 44 F.3d 524, 526 (7th Cir.1995).