Section Newsletters

Articles on Immunity

Determining whether absolute or qualified immunity applies to a prosecutor’s conduct By Alex Yorko Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2017 A review of when a prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity or absolute immunity from civil damages.
Officials not entitled to qualified immunity in First Amendment retaliation claim By Carlos Arévalo Local Government Law, November 2016 In Ricciuti v. Gyzenis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that police officials in Madison, Connecticut are not immune from liability for a fired police officer’s claim that she was retaliated against for her First Amendment speech.
Absolute immunity By Robert T. Park Civil Practice and Procedure, August 2016 A look at the court decisions that protect judges, public officers making statements in their official capacity, guardians ad litem, court-appointed experts and child representatives.
When a private individual can claim qualified immunity—A look at Filarsky v. Delia By Lisle A. Stalter Federal Civil Practice, June 2012 On April 17th of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, extended qualified immunity protections to a private individual hired by the government.
Local governmental entities not entitled to absolute immunity when a hazardous recreational activity is involved By Joy A. Roberts Local Government Law, October 2006 On July 5, 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that when a hazardous recreational activity is involved, local governmental entities and their employees are held to a higher standard of care; therefore, pursuant to section 3-109 of the Tort Immunity Act, they are immune from liability for negligence, but subject to the exceptions found in section 3-109(c) of the Act. Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, et al., 2006 WL 1822656 (Ill. 2006).
Mazin v. Chicago White Sox: The Sox strikeout on tort immunity By Hon. Michael P. McCluskey Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2006 A brief summary of a well-written opinion by Justice Robert Cahill of the First District Appellate Court in Mazin v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd.
Paramedics and the extent of statutory immunity: Through the looking glass By Ronald A. Roth Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2004 In Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 335 Ill.App.3d 22 (1st Dist. 2002), the First District discussed the extent of statutory immunity in considering whether a failure by paramedics to defibrillate a heart attack victim and the failure to perform an EKG to determine whether he needed to be defibrillated constituted a failure to properly treat a myocardial infarction, a failure to properly diagnose a myocardial infarction or a failure to properly examine a patient with a myocardial infarction.
Case analysis—Hope v. Pelzer By Yvonne M. Kato Racial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, May 2003 This past summer, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the long line of cases involving qualified immunity defenses and section 1983 suits.

Select a Different Subject