Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Werderman v. Liberty Ventures, LLCgreen2 sentences2011Experts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations `without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.' [Citation.] This principle is applicable to a child's representative, who although bound to consult the child is not bound by the child's wishes but rather by the child's best interests, and is thus a neutral, much like a court-appointed expert witness." Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 . ¶ 22 Plaintiffs here argue that as a federal co 2011Experts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations `without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.' [Citation.] This principle is applicable to a child's representative, who although bound to consult the child is not bound by the child's wishes but rather by the child's best interests, and is thus a neutral, much like a court-appointed expert witness." Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 . ¶ 22 Plaintiffs here argue that as a federal co | 3 | 5 |
Vlastelica v. Brendgreen2 sentences2021Just as in child custody or dissolution proceedings, in probate cases “[e]xperts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations ‘without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.’ ” Vlastelica, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587, ¶ 21 (quoting Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 ). ¶ 49 Therefore, we hold that guardians ad litem who submit recommendations to the court on a child’s best interests are protected by quasi-judicial immunity. 2019Just as in child custody or dissolution proceedings, in probate cases “[e]xperts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations ‘without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.’ ” Vlastelica, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587, ¶ 21 (quoting Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 ). ¶ 49 Therefore, we hold that guardians ad litem who submit recommendations to the court on a child’s best interests are protected by quasi-judicial immunity. | 2 | 2 |
Kurzawa v. Muellergreen1 sentence2012Experts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations ‘without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.’ ” Id. (quoting Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 (6th Cir. 1984)). ¶ 33 We agree with the Seventh Circuit’s assessment that all of the alleged misconduct from plaintiffs’ complaint occurred within the course of Rossiter’s court-appointed duties and, thus, he is immune because he was acting at the court’s direction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooney v. Rossiter
green
2 sentences2021Just as in child custody or dissolution proceedings, in probate cases “[e]xperts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations ‘without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.’ ” Vlastelica, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587, ¶ 21 (quoting Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 ). ¶ 49 Therefore, we hold that guardians ad litem who submit recommendations to the court on a child’s best interests are protected by quasi-judicial immunity. 2019Experts asked by the court to advise on what disposition will serve the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding need absolute immunity in order to be able to fulfill their obligations “without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents.” [Citation.] This principle is applicable to a child’s representative, who although bound to consult the child is not bound by the child’s wishes but rather by the child’s best interests, and is thus a neutral, much like a court-appointed expert witness.’ Cooney, 583 F.3d at 970 . | 8 | 2011–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.