Case law

Malone v. Schenk

638 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 1985

However, Justice O’Connor noted in her concurring opinion that such liability would be possible if an agency relationship could be established. … Clearly then, under section 1981, Theodore Schenk is liable for the acts of his employee, Robert Schenk.

Rivera v. Lake County

974 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2013

In Ware, the immunity issue was *1197 resolved on summary judgment, after a factual record was established. Ware, 31 Ill.Dec. 488 , 394 N.E.2d at 702 . … “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

Stanley v. Denning

130 Ill. App. 2d 628 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 3, 1970

However, there is a contrary emphasis applied to a right which is firmly established in our concepts of justice, embodied in the common law and in the constitution “Every person ought to find a certain remedy in the laws … Absent a clearly expressed intention to apply Tort Immunity Act to pre-existing cause of action, we hold the legislation to be prospective.

Taylor v. BI-COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.

353 Ill. Dec. 857 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2011

Birner explained that Cora's insurance had changed so that Logan was no longer covered under Medicaid for vaccines, but he was still qualified to receive VFC vaccines through Red Bud Pediatrics. … The plaintiffs attached that provider enrollment form to the motion to vacate, which provides, in relevant part, "I will comply with the appropriate immunization schedule, dosage and contraindications established by the DHHS

Jinkins v. Lee

Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 18, 2004

The Court of Claims Act establishes such a court to serve as a forum for actions against the state. 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002). … Here, the complaint is clearly directed to the alleged failure of Dr. Lee and Medlin to abide by their respective standards of care in their evaluation of George.

Martin v. Lane

766 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … At this time, the court cannot determine whether O’Leary and Lane are protected by qualified immunity.

Wells v. City of Chicago

896 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware. … The Court also holds that those rights and the standard for determining custody were clearly established, so that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Knox v. Donahue

232 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Knox’s arrests for violating his parole were protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages.

O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake

843 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 1994

established” so as to overcome Paxson’s and Sapoznik’s qualified immunity under Harlow v. … As suggested in Opinion at 1235, Paxson and Sapoznik are also entitled to be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, even apart from the *1234 holdings just announced and to be announced in the text.

McCADD v. Murphy

763 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2010

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, the defendants argue that even if officers lacked probable cause to arrest, they are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the defendants cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage on the basis of qualified immunity. See Hall v.

Oxford Bank & Trust & Fifth Avenue Property Management v. Village of La Grange

879 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 17, 2012

DISCUSSION The individual defendants raise various immunity defenses (legislative, qualified, and statutory) and further contend, along with the Village, that as a matter of law the plaintiffs fail to establish any constitutional … But even were the Court to conclude that the plaintiffs have sufficient uncontested evidence to establish that the Village (recall that the individual defendants are immune) enacted the zoning amendment, with or without animus

United States v. Diggs

385 F. Supp. 3d 648 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · May 13, 2019

In the qualified immunity context, lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing what was or was not clearly established at some prior point in time. See Kisela v. Hughes , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. … violated "clearly established" law.

Niebur v. Town of Cicero

212 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2002

Loren-Maltese argues that she was entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiffs must establish that (1) the alleged conduct makes out a constitutional violation, and (2) the consti *817 tutional standards were clearly established at the time

Hammond v. Rector

123 F. Supp. 3d 1076 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 2015

The last issue is whether the Wexford defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Defendants’ defense of qualified immunity therefore fails.

Doe v. City of Chicago

931 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 3, 1996

Norton contends that he is qualifiedly immune from being held liable, arguing that his conduct did not violate “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kernats v. … Doe’s right to be free from an unlawful search of her home is clearly established. Mr. Norton certainly would have been aware of this right.

Valfer v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare

2016 IL 119220 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2016

But we note that if a physician cannot show a violation of the hospital bylaws, there is no need to reach the statute’s immunity or the exception to that immunity because the physician could not establish a … would establish wilful and wanton misconduct.

Jain v. Butler Sch. Dist. 53

303 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 2018

The Administrators' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they "would not have believed taking plaintiff out of class and questioning him violated clearly established law," (Dist. Defs.' Mem. … It is clearly established that students have a limited right to be free from unreasonable restrictions of liberty, and A has stated a claim for violation of that right.

DOE EX REL. v. Chicago Bd. of Educ.

213 Ill. 2d 19 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2004

Hence, it argues that section 4 — 102 of the Act is clearly implicated. Nearly identical allegations were made by the plaintiff in A.R. v. Chicago Board of Education, 311 Ill. App. 3d 29 (1999). … to establish that the Board should have known of the special needs of the children on the bus. 339 Ill.

Giovenco-Pappas v. Berauer

2020 IL App (1st) 190904 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 2020

However, the court also made specific determinations about the effect and applicability of other immunity statutes, specifically the State Lawsuit Immunity Act and the qualified-immunity provision of the Adult Protective … ¶ 28 Plaintiffs do not deny that defendants here would qualify as State actors who ordinarily would be entitled to sovereign immunity. And rightly so. In Toth v. England, 348 Ill.

Shanahan v. City of Chicago

777 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1991

Daley and Orozco argue that qualified immunity shields them from liability unless it was clearly established at the time of Shanahan’s demotion that he could not be demoted for political reasons. Upton v. … The 1979 Shakman Decree and subsequent case law on the subject have clearly established the illegality of politically motivated firings of public employees. See, e.g., Pieczynski v.