Case law

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

Ween v. Village of New Lenox

2026 IL App (3d) 250449 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 2026

In addition, and again unlike section 4-102, section 2-202 contains a willful and wanton conduct exception and thus provides only limited or qualified immunity to public employees. … ” ¶ 37 The circumstances of this case do not clearly fall into one section of the Act or the other.

In Re Application of the County Collector of the County of Winnebago

918 F. Supp. 235 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 26, 1996

Clearly, the relief requested has components of both traditional injunctive and compensatory relief. … The Romano case only establishes that the immunity under the Tort Immunity Act is unavailable to a defendant against which a plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive relief.

Carolan v. City of Chicago

2018 IL App (1st) 170205 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2019

established where the alleged negligence only creates a condition that allowed the injury to be possible. … . ¶ 13 Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide

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.”

Miller v. Lewis

381 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 2005

“Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken during a stop or arrest insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because of the Court's disposition on prong one of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court need not engage in the second prong — determining whether the supposed rule violated was clearly established at a meaningful degree

Monson v. City of Danville

2018 IL 122486 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2019

The court further held the City adequately established its immunity from liability pursuant to sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. … In so holding, this court reached the unremarkable conclusion that the immunity of section 3-104 was not limited and that it “clearly and unequivocally states that the municipality is immune from all liability

Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.)

190 B.R. 618 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1996

The statute clearly makes reference to the date that a tax is payable without penalty rather than date of the filing of the return. … Therefore, it did not establish that $50,000.00 payment was on account of an antecedent debt.

Sylvester v. Chicago Park District

179 Ill. 2d 500 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1997

The Park District alleged that its pregame traffic control and parking lot setup routine around Soldier Field qualified as an "inspection system” under section 3 — 102(b). … The court stated that even if it were to take judicial notice of the location of Burnham Park, the Park District still failed to carry its burden of establishing a section 3 — 106 affirmative defense.

Knox v. Genison

726 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 1, 1989

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)) properly contrasts the Imbler-directed absolute immunity for prosecutors engaged in their prosecutorial functions with the merely “qualified immunity [that] provides … immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means ..., for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.

House v. Nelson

210 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2002

Defendant Nelson moves to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity, claiming that his conduct did not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Rather, the issue is whether or not it is clearly established that a Department of *994 Corrections investigator could not constitutionally require a parolee to take a lie detector test.

Rivera v. Guevara

319 F. Supp. 3d 1004 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · May 11, 2018

was "clearly established at the time." … For qualified immunity purposes, "[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established."

Shaheed v. City of N.Y.

287 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 2, 2018

At minimum, qualified immunity protects such a determination. See Cerrone , 246 F.3d at 202 -03 . Accordingly, on any theory of false arrest or false imprisonment, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … These principles apply with equal force in the qualified immunity context. See, e.g., Betts , 751 F.3d at 82-83 (qualified immunity on false arrest yielded qualified immunity on malicious prosecution); Pinter v.

Michalowski v. Rutherford

82 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2015

that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … on qualified immunity.

James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC

250 N.E.3d 251 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2024

The court remanded the cause to the circuit court, which it found to be in the best position to evaluate the evidence and determine whether Bria qualifies for statutory immunity … This statement is clearly incorrect.

Anest v. Lake County

147 Ill. App. 3d 243 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 18, 1986

immunity from a section 1983 suit because the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; and the taxpayers lacked standing to sue certain township assessors because … Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (Ill.

Doe v. Dolton Elementary School District No. 148

694 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 1988

Once a person’s immune system is weakened, he is susceptible to diseases which uninfected persons’ immune systems can easily fight off. Such diseases are labeled “opportunistic infections.” … Id. at 710 ; see also Ray, 666 F.Supp. at 1535 (“actual, ongoing injury to Plaintiffs ... clearly outweighs the potential harm to others____”).

Harden v. Peck

686 F. Supp. 1254 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 1988

Peck: Qualified Immunity The plaintiffs argue that Peck is not entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons: first, because no reasonably competent police officer in Peck’s position would have concluded that the factual … We hold that the Peck is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. B.

Davila v. Lang

343 F. Supp. 3d 254 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 23, 2018

"The doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims fall within an applicable waiver." See Makarova v. … But the language of Articles 23 and 23-a clearly establishes that the state statute does not purport to constrain the actions of federal administrative bodies like OLAP.

Naleway v. Agnich

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2008

The defendant has a qualified privilege to make the statements regarding the plaintiff [sic] and she did not abuse her privilege; and b. the defendant is immune from liability for making … -8- No. 2--06--1275 The plaintiff[s] assert[] that the defendant abused her qualified privilege and that she is not entitled to immunity under