Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
9.55s
Abo-Saif v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
2022 IL App (1st) 211091 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2022
In 2020, plaintiff filed this action against defendant for money damages for breach of the settlement agreement and a declaratory judgment that he should be given another opportunity to qualify for readmission to the juris … As in Ellis, “the plaintiff’s suit in the instant case is clearly based upon a present claim which has the potential to subject the State to liability and thus must be brought in the Court of Claims.” Id. at 395.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMulvey v. Carl Sandburg High School
2016 IL App (1st) 151615 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 2017
Id. ¶ 45 Our supreme court has established a two-part test to determine which employees may be granted immunity under section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act. … First, an employee may qualify for immunity “if he holds either a position involving the determination of policy or a position involving the exercise of discretion.” (Emphases in original.)
Cited 11 timesPublished207 Ill. App. 3d 193 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 1990
Clearly this function is discretionary. … It is a well established principle of the common law that an immunity exists in favor of public officials when they are exercising their official discretion on matters which are discretionary in nature and not ministerial
Cited 12 timesPublished984 N.E.2d 1177 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2013
The Tort Immunity Act does not establish any new duties for governmental entities but “merely codifies those duties existing at common law, to which the subsequently delineated immunities apply.” … The plain language of sections 4-102 and 4-107 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/4-102, 4-107 (West 2010)) clearly apply here to immunize the defendants for these alleged failures.
Cited 9 timesPublishedNiehaus v. Rural Peoria County Council on Aging, Inc.
314 Ill. App. 3d 665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 23, 2000
Act (Tort Immunity Act or Act) (745 ILCS 10/8 — 101 (West 1996)). … The court stated: “The amendment to section 1 — 206 of the Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev.
Cited 7 timesPublished781 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2011
Even if Lukanich and Eannace were not entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct during this period, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity inquiry asks two questions: whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct
Cited 13 timesPublished59 Ill. 2d 546 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1975
It is less clear whether or not the prosecutor thought that he would be able to use the testimony given under immunity to establish that prior perjury. … Walker, 28 Ill.2d 585 , established that such testimony given under immunity could not be used for that purpose.
Cited 7 timesPublished193 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 1961
The Court concludes that Melekh cannot qualify as a “public minister” as the term is used in the Constitution and in the statute. … Judge Herlands describes the immunity as a “functional” immunity, but defendant states that description is ambiguous in that a functional immunity may refer to immunity from arrests for acts done in the exercise of one’s
Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026
The Court therefore addresses only the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “Plaintiff did not have a clearly established right . . . to make bail payment to the county clerk,” even if the Sheriff’s Office had accepted improper
Cited 0 timesUnknown81 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 2015
Additionally, Warnisher and Brown contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Qualified immunity (1) A public official may is protected by qualified immunity from liability for reasonable mistakes made in the performance of his or her duties. See Findlay v.
Cited 1 timesPublished2011 IL App (2d) 110108 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2011
Eventually, the board granted variations establishing an eastern sideyard setback of 32 feet and a front setback of 126 feet. … . ¶ 31 Here, the trial court clearly ruled only on the motion to dismiss brought under the Act.
Cited 12 timesPublishedCipolla v. Bloom Township High School District No. 206
69 Ill. App. 3d 434 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 1979
The public policy considerations in authorizing, and indeed encouraging, teachers to have broad discretion and latitude in the former situation quite clearly do not apply with as much force to the latter.” … These decisions establish that the rule announced by the supreme court in Kobylanski is viable and applies to actions arising out of the teacher-student relationship in matters relating to the teacher’s personal supervision
Cited 23 timesPublishedVickery Manor Service Corp. v. Village of Mundelein
575 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1983
City of Boulder established an important guide for future eases: a general grant of power to a local governmental unit does not necessarily immunize subsequent anticompetitive conduct pursuant to that grant. … The city, contending that its denial of services to the towns was authorized by clearly articulated state policy, argued that state action immunity protected its conduct.
Cited 1 timesPublished259 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 23, 2003
is protected by this immunity); see Bond v. … Nawrot has pointed to evidence in the record that he has collapsed at work and is unable to think clearly when suffering from a diabetic attack.
Cited 16 timesPublished987 N.E.2d 864 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2013
There is no allegation they deviated from established protocol in reporting their allegations. … the defendant’s motives.”). ¶ 72 On the other hand, where only qualified privilege is granted the person making the statement is immune from liability unless some element such as malice is present.
Cited 43 timesPublished346 F. Supp. 3d 1193 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018
DISCUSSION Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing, that Plaintiff's federal claims are unripe, that Alderman Moreno is entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity from suit in his individual capacity, and that … Immunity Defendant Moreno argues that he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity from all Plaintiff's claims.
Cited 14 timesPublished975 N.E.2d 1234 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 6, 2012
The court further found that “there was nothing else to really look at or present to me on behalf of the Plaintiff that clearly establishes that the Defendant’s comments were not covered by the [Act].” … a new absolute or qualified privilege for defamation.”
Cited 12 timesPublishedRyan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
979 N.E.2d 954 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 2012
a standard for invoking immunity under the Act. … See id. ¶ 45; see also id. ¶ 50 (“We believe that, had the legislature intended to radically alter the common law by imposing a qualified privilege on defamation within the process of petitioning the government
Cited 27 timesPublishedStarnes v. International Harvester Co.
141 Ill. App. 3d 652 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 1986
When only qualified privilege is granted, the person making the statement is immune from liability unless some element such as malice is present. … The court recognized that not all complaints to administrative agencies had that immunity but if the agency had judicial powers, the same consideration requiring immunity for complaints to courts were operative.
Cited 16 timesPublished951 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1997
Defendants raise a general claim of qualified immunity, but immunity is clearly inapplicable. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna