Case law

Loman v. Freeman

Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2008

Defendant is not immune from liability. … Clearly, this was not a “walk-in” procedure.

Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook

Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2000

In sum, our review of plaintiff’s complaint and supporting evidence, made in light of the plain language of sections 6–105 and 6–106, establishes that defendants are immunized and, therefore, summary judgment was appropriately … In support of this proposition, plaintiff cites to three decisions in which the appellate court held that diagnosis and treatment of patients are not governmental in character so as to qualify for public officials’ immunity

People v. Burkert

7 Ill. 2d 506 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1955

Burkert was then taken before the grand jury and asked a number of questions similar to those previously asked of him, but qualified to conform with the time limitation contained in the court’s amended order. … The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, and explained that while the witness’s own claim of privilege did not establish the risk of incrimination, and that the matter was one for the court to decide, nevertheless, to sustain

Tosado v. Miller

188 Ill. 2d 186 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1999

Immunity Act.” 293 Ill. … an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed; (2) whether, given the purpose and history of the new rule, its operation will be retarded or promoted by prospective application; and (3) whether

People Ex Rel. Bernardi v. Leary Construction Co.

102 Ill. 2d 295 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1984

leases, easements or right-of-way permits for oil or gas pipeline purposes, unitization agreements, or any renegotiation of any of the preceding to which the state is a party’ contain a provision ‘requiring the employment of qualified … Because no relationship has been established between nonresident employment on public works projects and resident unemployment, the nonresident laborers cannot be considered a “peculiar source” of the evil of unemployment

Carroll v. Paddock

Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2002

Plaintiff responded that HRC and the Hospital did not qualify as local public entities under the Act. … ” under the Tort Immunity Act.

Aikens v. Morris

145 Ill. 2d 273 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1991

Defendants maintain that the appellate court improperly rejected this “rule” and instead established a factual distinction, not contemplated by the language of section 2—202, between a police officer’s “more routine” and … Clearly, the plain language of section 2—202 and our decisions in Arnolt, Thompson, and Fitzpatrick, interpreting that language, informed the court’s ultimate determination here.

Pfister v. Shusta

167 Ill. 2d 417 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1995

Defendant based this analogy on his claim that the parties had divided themselves into teams, established goals and had no out-of-bounds area. … Sprowls (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 390, 399 ("Clearly, it may be negligent to play in areas inappropriate for such activity”).

Leone v. City of Chicago

156 Ill. 2d 33 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1993

No higher degree of fault need be established. … In neither case did the police officer's suggestion qualify as a direct order or an assumption of direct and immediate control over the plaintiff.

Krebs v. Board of Trustees

410 Ill. 435 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1951

or exclusive privilege to a group of individuals without any basis for such classification in violation of section 22 of article IV which prohibits the General Assembly from granting “any special or exclusive privilege, immunity … As to section 25-55.1, the answer alleged that those persons who had retired prior to the act because of disability and who had qualified for disability allowance increases, were persons who did not qualify for age retirement

Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge

148 Ill. 2d 417 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1992

On motion of the plaintiff, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 316, a certificate of importance was issued, establishing jurisdiction in this court. We affirm. … Here, the purpose of the highway is clearly for the use of automobiles.

Walker v. Chasteen

2025 IL 130288 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2025

Rather, the General Assembly established the Court of Claims to receive and resolve claims against the State. People v. Philip Morris, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d 87, 97 (2001). … The refunds qualify as the type of relief the Court of Claims may award, but we need not decide and do not consider whether plaintiffs are procedurally barred from pursuing their refund claim in the Court of

Illinois Crime Investigating Commission v. Sarno

45 Ill. 2d 473 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 27, 1970

The statute clearly gives the circuit court the power to compel the defendants to appear before the Commission and answer questions. … That section grants immunity to the defendants from further prosecutions. That this immunity is co-extensive with the fifth amendment has been established by the holding of Murphy v. Waterfront Commission.

Ramsey v. Morrison

175 Ill. 2d 218 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1997

Clearly, a central purpose of the workers’ compensation system is to place the cost of employee injuries on the enterprise or the industry, and that purpose is accomplished, in part, by granting immunity to coemployees whose … As the court noted, 'the third party’s interest is that of any other cotortfeasor — to limit its liability to no more than its established fault.’ [Citation.]

Michigan Millers Mutual Fire Insurance v. McDonough

358 Ill. 575 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1934

licensed to transact business in this State under the provisions of the Mutual Insurance act of 1915; that each maintains and operates an agency in the city of Chicago; that through these agencies they hold themselves out as qualified … theft, collision and property damage, and hail, windstorm, cyclone, tornado, earthquake, use and occupancy, and sprinkler-leakage insurance; that the Central Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company also announces itself qualified

City of Bloomington v. Pollock

141 Ill. 346 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 11, 1892

In the report of the Elgin ease the facts do not very clearly appear, but they were, that the ordinance determining the grade of the streets there involved was the original establishment of a grade for such streets, and that … In our opinion there is no merit in this claim of immunity made by appellant.

Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District

2016 IL 117952 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2016

Whether a plaintiff can establish that a local public entity owed a duty is a separate and distinct inquiry from the issue of whether defendants can claim a statutory immunity is available as a defense. … State Board of Elections, 222 Ill. 2d 482, 490 (2006) (“We need not decide this disagreement, because even if Public Act 93–541 created additional judgeships, Public Act 94–727 clearly eliminated them ***.”)

Tzakis v. Maine Township

2020 IL 125017 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2020

Defendants responded that the new law established in Coleman should only be applied prospectively. … ¶ 29 As to the first factor, defendants correctly assert that Coleman clearly established a new principle of law by overturning decades of existing precedent.

Doe v. Chicago Board of Education

Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2004

Hence, it argues that section 4–102 of the Act is clearly implicated. Nearly identical allegations were made by the plaintiff in A.R. v. Chicago Board of Education , 311 Ill. App. 3d 29 (1999). … to establish that the Board should have known of the special needs of the children on the bus. 339 Ill.

Wilkins v. Williams

2013 IL 114310 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2013

As further support for its holding, the appellate court noted that when the legislature wanted to immunize the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, it clearly expressed its intent in the statute, pointing … Although plaintiff states in her brief that defendants “came barreling down the outer lane of traffic,” all evidence established that defendants were not speeding at the time of the accident.