Case law

Clarage v. Kuzma

342 Ill. App. 3d 573 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 30, 2003

We find that, under the facts alleged, the qualified privilege does not apply. … We find that the qualified privilege does not apply. Defendant Scully also claims that his actions are protected by sections 2 — 206 and 2 — 201 of the Tort Immunity Act.

Jones v. Department of Public Aid

373 Ill. App. 3d 184 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2007

Four factors must be established before the trial court grants an injunction: (1) a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection; (2) the occurrence of irreparable harm without the injunction; (3) an inadequate remedy … The Department’s limited evidence on projected costs for individuals similar to Michael does not clearly establish what level of funding it considers would be necessary to accommodate individuals with disabilities comparable

Hubble v. BI-STATE DEV. ILLINOIS-MISSOURI

393 Ill. App. 3d 1016 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 6, 2009

DISCUSSION The question of whether Bi-State is a “local public entity” under the Tort Immunity Act presents an issue of statutory construction that is guided by well-established legal principles. … In support of its argument that it qualifies as a local public entity, Bi-State cites Grady v. Bi-State Development Agency, 151 Ill.

Harris v. Thompson

976 N.E.2d 999 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2012

of first impression where the resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. … PPG Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d 1312, 1314-15 (7th Cir. 1984). ¶ 32 Also, we do not decide an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

Hughes v. City of Chicago

673 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2009

that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. C.

Montalvo v. Park Ridge Police Department

170 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants offer a qualified immunity defense which they raise for the first time in their reply brief. Arguments are deemed waived when raised for the first time in a reply brief. … The Eleventh Circuit held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity since there was no precedent which established that an officer must abandon his attempt to arrest a suspect in order to protect a second suspect

First National Bank v. Village of Mundelein

166 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 1988

Initially, defendant contends that the evidence does not clearly and unequivocally establish that plaintiffs intended to donate the land over and under the roads to defendant for public streets. … Regarding whether or not defendant clearly and unequivocally accepted the roads, plaintiffs emphasize the following.

Fairley v. Andrews

300 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to qualified immunity, and thereby may avoid liability under section 1983, when his conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Pirela v. Village of North Aurora

966 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 1997

doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials, acting in their *671 official capacity, from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Gustein v. City of Evanston

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2010

The trial court determined, after hearing all of the evidence presented to the jury, that the City had failed to establish that it qualified for discretionary immunity under the Act. 745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 2008). … The City has the burden of proving that it qualifies for discretionary immunity and the City failed to meet that burden. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370.

Falk v. Martel

210 Ill. App. 3d 557 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 15, 1991

The case was removed to Federal court, and the defendant was granted summary judgment on count Y on the basis of qualified immunity. The remainder of the complaint was remanded back to the circuit court. … App. 2d 239 , 246 N.E.2d 24 ), nor was an employee of the Department of Transportation liable for failure to establish a no-passing zone where one was called for by State standards (Mora v.

Opp v. Devine

621 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2009

She alleges, however, that she was selected for termination over less qualified or equally qualified peers based on 1) her lack of a “political sponsor” with sufficient “clout” to have her name removed from the termination … C.Plaintiffs Shakman claim Plaintiff alleges that “defendants’ actions in terminating Plaintiffs employment,” while less qualified or equally qualified employees with “political sponsorship” were not terminated, violates

Alave v. City of Chicago

2023 IL 128602 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2023

This court asserted—in the context of pedestrian use— that “the Illinois legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries which occur … Rather, the City contends that foreseeability has no relevance to intended use of its property but, rather, is a separate requirement for establishing a duty under section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act

Barrientos v. Haritos

836 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 25, 2011

Probable cause and qualified immunity are often analyzed together in § 1983 cases. Thompson, 319 F.3d at 935 . … This is sufficient to entitle the officers to qualified immunity, even if probable cause was lacking. See Thompson v.

Krueger v. Lewis

342 Ill. App. 3d 467 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 2003

A complaint for defamation must set forth the words alleged to be defamatory “clearly and with particularity.” Lykowski v. Bergman, 299 Ill. App. 3d 157, 163 , 700 N.E.2d 1064, 1069 (1998). … Defendant Zakos argued that his statement was privileged, but it is not apparent whether he sought the protection of an absolute or qualified privilege.

Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook

191 Ill. 2d 493 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2000

In sum, our review of plaintiffs complaint and supporting evidence, made in light of the plain language of sections 6 — 105 and 6 — 106, establishes that defendants are immunized and, therefore, summary judgment was appropriately … In support of this proposition, plaintiff cites to three decisions in which the appellate court held that diagnosis and treatment of patients are not governmental in character so as to qualify for public officials’ immunity

Predmore v. Schwartz

141 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In the interest of brevity, the Court will first consider Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, because the law is not clearly established that Plaintiff may recover damages in a § 1983 action for not being read his Miranda warnings, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. K.

Funches v. Ebbert

638 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek judgment in their favor on the qualified immunity defense. This argument appears to target Count 1. As noted above, the defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on Count 1. … Because there was no constitutional deprivation, the qualified immunity defense is not addressed at this time. Saucier v.

Hosick v. Chicago State University Board of Trustees

924 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Lindsey v. Orlando

232 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 2, 2017

The Defendant Officers have interposed a defense of qualified immunity in their answer. (Chicago Answer 17.) The elements of a claim of false arrest are familiar. … immunity.