Case law

Bowes v. Alvarez

253 N.E.3d 462 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 2024

¶ 27 The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is well-established in the common law of the United States. In Imbler v. … In his reply brief, he also argues that defendants were clearly acting as advocates for themselves, as opposed to the State.

Stone v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University

38 F. Supp. 3d 935 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2014

However, as in Rickman, demotion and promotion decisions are clearly within the scope of Stone’s supervisors’ employment, 4 and thus sovereign immunity blocks the claims in Counts V and VIII based on the Whistleblower Act … Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 224 (7th Cir.1993) (“In effect [plaintiff] is arguing that a state cannot waive its sovereign immunity in part; if the state doesn’t want to be sued in federal court, it can’t establish a court of claims

Reyna v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2025

Qualified immunity exists to protect public officials from suit unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Doxtator v. O’Brien, 39 F.4th 852, 863 (7th Cir. 2022). … Armbrust’s obligation to intervene was not clearly established in 1998, and as such she is entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. See Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198.

Carter v. Du Page County Sheriff

304 Ill. App. 3d 443 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1999

Plaintiff contends that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply because (1) the standard of care established in sections 11—205 and 11—907 of the IIlinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11—205, 11—907 (West 1996)) supercedes … This argument is clearly erroneous for two reasons. First, and most disturbingly, the language counsel relies upon and quotes at length comes, not from the court’s opinion, but from a special concurring opinion.

Taft v. Otte & Co.

274 Ill. App. 280 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 1934

App. 428 ,” but the opinion contains the further statement that “it seems to be conceded that the stock was not qualified and was Class ‘C.’ ” In Jochum v. … Brady, supra, p. 430 ), this interpretation, in our judgment, is clearly wrong. In Oppenheimer v. Peabody, Houghteling & Co., supra, Mr.

Barr v. Cutler

64 Ill. App. 3d 518 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1978

The failure on the part of the lessor to qualify the word “fire” indicates an intent on his part. Additionally, damage due to “other inevitable accidents” remains unspecified, while fire is specifically mentioned. … In addition, society’s interests are met in part by the establishment of definite rules which enable individuals and businesses to allocate the risks of foreseeable losses.

Thurman v. Champaign Park District

2011 IL App (4th) 101024 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 10, 2011

Fourth District Docket No. 4-10-1024 Argued July 13, 2011 Filed August 10, 2011 Held The Tort Immunity Act immunized defendant … of public entities in Tort Immunity cases to the exclusion of common[-]law definitions.”

Glover v. Board of Education

21 Ill. App. 3d 1053 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 5, 1974

In Reynolds the plaintiff served notice on the defendant city by registered mail with return receipt requested when the Local Government Tort Immunity Act required personal service. … The school board’s dismissal of plaintiff is then clearly not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Aku v. Chi. Bd. of Educ.

290 F. Supp. 3d 852 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Nov 14, 2017

As a result, Aku's claims against the ARDC are barred by sovereign immunity. … Arbitrators are shielded from liability by absolute immunity. See Coleman v.

MARCAVAGE v. City of Chicago

674 F. Supp. 2d 1022 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2009

immunity. … effort on the other (and alternative) string to the individual defendants’ legal bow — the doctrine of *1027 qualified immunity — this opinion goes on to discuss that subject as well.

DuFour-Dowell v. Cogger

969 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 1997

Defendants argue that the force they used was not excessive or, alternatively, they are entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedents did not clearly establish that the force they used was excessive. … Once qualified immunity is invoked, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Kaider v. Hamos

975 N.E.2d 667 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 2012

It categorizes all aliens as ‘qualified’ or not ‘qualified’ and then denies public benefits based on that categorization.” League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F. … The General Assembly was therefore clearly cognizant that the PRA imposed requirements on the distribution of public benefits in Illinois.

Scatchell v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park

464 Ill. Dec. 409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2022

In fact, many of Scatchell’s individual violations alone would have been enough to establish cause supporting his termination. … He now argues the Board should have ruled on his motion when he made it, because the Department had not established a prima facie case against him.

Williams v. Medical Center Commission

60 Ill. 2d 389 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1975

Section 2 of the Act establishes a commission of seven appointed members to manage the affairs of the District. … Ct. 1347 , indicates clearly, we believe, that the assertion of sovereign immunity by a State is not offensive to any provision of the Constitution of the United States.

Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC

386 F. Supp. 3d 308 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 7, 2019

By enacting the price-per-page provision, the Legislature clearly intended to control patient costs associated with access to medical records. … Although Sections 18(11) and (12) do not provide immunity for overcharges in violation of § 18(2)(e), see Spiro v. Healthport Tech. , 73 F.

Limes-Miller v. City of Chicago

773 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 1991

Qualified Immunity As with her other claims, Limes-Miller’s Count II claim against Rogers must fail for a second and independent reason — this time because Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Whether an official violated clearly established constitutional protections is a question of law (id.).

Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

150 Ill. App. 3d 472 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1986

These allegations clearly suggest that Schal had supervisory responsibility and are sufficient to establish that Schal's liability to Krkljus may arise out of its general supervision of the construction operations performed … because the underlying complaint contains no allegations of negligence against Mid-American, Schal's general supervision of Mid-American's operations would not subject Schal to liability, ignores Mid-American's inchoate immunity

Moore v. Chicago Park District

978 N.E.2d 1050 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2012

Chicago Park District, 179 Ill. 2d 500, 508 (1997) (walkways and parking lots adjacent to stadium increase recreational usefulness of the facility and therefore qualify as property intended for recreational … irrelevant to our determination of the certified question, a reading of section 3-106 which encourages the maintenance of a parking area adjacent to a recreational facility through the removal of snow and ice clearly

Brown v. Chicago Park District

218 Ill. App. 3d 612 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1991

Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act or Act) (Ill. … Under this approach, section 3 — 108(b) of the Act merely establishes a condition defendants would be required to meet in order to successfully assert the Tort Immunity Act as an affirmative defense; it does not address the

Epstein v. Chicago Bd. of Educ.

178 Ill. 2d 370 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1997

whole established only limited immunity. … The plaintiff may establish this by presenting "affidavits or other proof." 735 ILCS 5/2-619(c) (West 1992).