Case law

Hill v. Miller

878 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1995

As the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed, “[p]olice officers who use force are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, Miller maintains that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [v.

Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, Sheriff Williamson asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because there were no clearly established constitutional standards on the date when the alleged violations occurred.

Derfus v. City of Chicago

42 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved * * * when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights

Simkunas v. Tardi

720 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Furthermore, in summary judgment situations where qualified immunity is at issue, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the allegedly “clearly established constitutional right.”

Townsel v. Jamerson

240 F. Supp. 3d 894 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2017

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants urge the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs claims based on *905 the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. 23 at 9-11.) … Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability, trial, and interference with their duties when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Purtell v.

Baptist v. O'LEARY

742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990

Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2024

“[B]ecause immunity may depend on particular facts that a plaintiff need not plead to state a claim,” a motion to dismiss does not generally provide the best procedural setting to determine qualified immunity. … See id. at 590 (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

160 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under § 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … established law” for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.

Monroe v. Gould

372 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was 'clearly established'; and (3) even if the right was 'clearly

Eckmann v. Board of Education of Hawthorn School District No. 17

636 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1986

Having at least arguably violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, the Board members lose the benefits of a qualified immunity — “immunity from suit” — and are forced to proceed to trial to test the … Qualified immunity protects government officials only in cases where it cannot be said that their actions violated rights clearly established at the time that they acted.

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Gustafson v. Thomas

75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

Doss v. Gilkey

649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Tricoci v. Blackman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2024

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a discretionary function that is objectively lawful in light of clearly established law and the information an officer possessed at the time. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or which a reasonable person would have known.")

Stone-El v. Fairman

785 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 17, 1991

We now turn to the issue of qualified immunity. B. … However, as the right in question was not clearly established in reference to the facts of this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As such, we dismiss Stone-El’s amended complaint in its entirety.