Case law

Ross v. Mauro Chevrolet

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2006

and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Immunity Act). … Defendants also contended that -4- 1-06-0156 the officers' establishment of probable cause provided them with qualified immunity against the section 1983 claims.

Domaracki v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr. Federal Credit Union

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2021

Moreover, Domaracki acknowledges that each employee was qualified for their new position. (Dkt. 69, ¶ 9). … Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 967 (7th Cir. 2012) (“an employee’s complaint [. ..] does not immunize [him] from being subsequently disciplined or terminated for inappropriate workplace behavior.”).

Ware v. The City of Chicago

375 Ill. App. 3d 574 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 1, 2007

customary construction practices; c. supervise inspectors to ensure identification of Building Code violations or deviation from ordinary and customary construction practices; d. employ qualified … It is well established that the Tort Immunity Act does not impose new duties on a public entity; rather, it merely confers immunities and defenses.

Lacey v. Village of Palatine

379 Ill. App. 3d 62 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 2008

The court determined that the limited immunity in section 305 of the Domestic Violence Act clearly works in concert with the requirements in section 304: “section 304 creates duties; section 305 limits civil liability for … Defendants had the burden of proof in establishing their immunity. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370 . They failed to do so.

Grand Boulevard Improvement Ass'n v. City of Chicago

553 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 7, 1982

The government’s first line of defense is that an award of fees in both of these cases is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. There is no dispute that Congress waived sovereign immunity in enacting the EAJA. … No. 1418, supra 14, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4993. 8 Moreover, while the burden of establishing a substantial justification is clearly on the government where the private party has prevailed, see id. at 10-11, U.S.Code

Brewer v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

339 Ill. App. 3d 1074 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 2003

Illinois has not clearly waived sovereign immunity; far from it, Illinois has clearly reinstated sovereign immunity, with the two narrow qualifications the Immunity Act specifies. … The United States Supreme Court held: “[T]he Rhode Island courts have jurisdiction adequate and appropriate under established local law to adjudicate this action.

Threlkeld v. White Castle Systems, Inc.

201 F. Supp. 2d 834 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 2002

Threlkeld can make out a claim for excessive force, they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v. … The Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was constitutional in fight of the clearly established law and the information that the officer possessed at the

Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court

322 Ill. App. 3d 345 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2001

As Welch’s employer, Justice Heiple is protected by a qualified privilege. See Vajda v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 253 Ill. App. 3d 345, 358-59 (1993). … It is well established that a breach of contract claim against the State is a present claim for relief barred by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Jones, 113 Ill. 2d 126, 132-33 (1986).

Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

2019 IL 124283 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2021

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.

Mohr v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees

99 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2000

The individual defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago

192 Ill. 2d 274 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

The defendants challenge the appellate court’s interpretation, arguing that the statute immunizes a local public entity that establishes a rescue service but fails to competently use that service when summoned by a particular … We believe that section 5 — 101 immunizes only a local public entity that has not established a fire department or rescue service, or has not instituted a system for otherwise providing fire or rescue services.

Village of Harristown v. State

48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 424 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jan 23, 1996

The draftsmanship of this statute — which placed this immunity clause within a larger section, rather than establishing it as a free-standing provision within the code — suggests that it is but an aspect of the subject addressed … The IDOT activity involved was the mowing of the highway right-of-way, which is clearly related to — and virtually a part of— IDOT’s ownership and maintenance of the highway right-of-way.

Dertz v. City of Chicago

912 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1995

We agree with the defendants that the claims in Count V are in fact official capacity claims, so we need not address the defendants’ qualified immunity claim and other arguments made as to the plaintiffs’ individual capacity … Such allegations clearly establish that it is the defendants’ actions in their official capacity that form the basis for the constitutional deprivation which is alleged in the complaint. Hill v.

Jinkins v. Lee

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2003

common law doctrine of public officials' immunity. … Further, it is well established that public officials' immunity does not apply to every discretionary act by an official but rather only to those acts which are unique to the particular public office.

Renzi v. Morrison

249 Ill. App. 3d 5 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1993

As a further safeguard, no record or communication is relevant “unless the party seeking disclosure of the communication clearly establishes in the trial court a compelling need for its production.” … The statute clearly indicates the legislature intended to modify absolute common law witness immunity in order to provide a remedy of damages against persons who violate the act.

Beaman v. Souk

863 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2012

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants devote all of their efforts to establishing that there is no “malicious motive” exception in the Illinois prosecutorial immunity analysis. … Indeed, the allegations reveal that these Defendant’s [sic] are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 48 at 19-20). Thus, the Court did not engage in the qualified immunity analysis as a mere thought exercise.

Andres v. Campbell (In Re Andres)

288 B.R. 205 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2001

immunity in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In response to this assertion of qualified immunity, the Plaintiff conceded that Defendant, Linda Campbell, was immune from liability for any damages in this case.

Varner v. Illinois State University

972 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 1997

. 3 Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suit through the Equal Pay Act, and the portion of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss which requests dismissal of … To determine who qualifies as a respondent, one has no recourse but to look to § 2000e-5(b), which defines “respondent” as, inter alia, an “employer.” ...

Manning v. Buchan

357 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2004

Qualified immunity issues Defendants Buchan and Miller seek - to preclude evidence of various matters on which they say they are entitled to qualified immunity and which, they say, the Court “refrained from resolving” on … Third, the Court did not, in fact, refrain from ruling on the defendants’ request for summary judgment on qualified immunity as to the Brady claims.

Salte v. YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago Foundation

351 Ill. App. 3d 524 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 2, 2004

Although some of the equipment normally found in an intubation kit was on the premises, the nurse did not bring it because she was not qualified to use it. … Additionally, although the complaint alleges that the paramedic was “duly qualified,” the complaint fails to indicate whether the paramedic was certified and licensed and whether the paramedic was trained or qualified to