Case law

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

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Killian v. Grizzle

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2025

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 … Grizzle] violated th[is] clearly established right[].” Id. Sgt.

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Authority

778 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claim Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim. Under Harlow v. … clearly established).

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Hunter v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

Meeks is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct).

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

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: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

Tricoci v. Vidljinovic

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2025

This brings the Court to Defendants’ third argument: qualified immunity. … 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 would have

Parkway Bank & Trust v. City of Darien

43 Ill. App. 3d 400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1976

On this basis an award of damages against public officials with qualified immunity “would be inimical to the efficient functioning of government.” (Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, 404 F. Supp. 148, 159 .) … Supp. 148, 159 , states that even where government officials are granted qualified immunity they are still absolutely immune “to damages in the absence of malice ° * * whenever at the time of the action a substantial question

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

Cox v. Thompson

635 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 12, 1986

First plaintiff contends that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply in this case because the rights asserted by the plaintiff are clearly established constitutional rights. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE “Government officials performing discretionary functions, as here, are shielded from liability for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory

Fittanto v. Klein

788 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1992

Because the law in 1984 and 1985 was not clearly established, the court held that the defendants who interviewed the children were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Because the law in this area is not clearly established, defendant Klein is entitled to qualified immunity for her conduct. Plaintiffs counter that this case is remarkably like Snell v.

Breuder v. Board of Trustees

238 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2017

Defeating qualified immunity requires (1) conduct violating the plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation such that a “reasonable official would understand … Here, the Individual Defendants claim that, even if there was a violation, it was not clearly established.

Morgan v. Stringer

945 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1996

established constitutional right at the time that they acted (consistently with that reason for the rule, Harlow, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 stressed the notion that motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to *1132 summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity