Case law

Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508

2019 IL 123594 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 23, 2019

¶9 Plaintiff concluded that the instructor was not qualified to teach HeaPro 101 or the related curricula. After reaching this conclusion, he e-mailed his direct supervisors, Dr. … In count I, a claim for common-law retaliatory discharge, plaintiff alleges the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1070 et seq. (2012)) establishes a clearly mandated public policy of enabling students

Ultsch v. The Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund

Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2007

The Smida majority then concluded that the Board of Trustees qualifies for amendment for the following reasons. In the complaint, plaintiff named a government entity, IMRF, as a party. … Because the plaintiff failed to name the Board of Trustees as a defendant, her action clearly was subject to dismissal pursuant to section 3–107(a).

Lerk v. McCabe

349 Ill. 348 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1932

On November 30, 1927, by an order of court entered in the cause, John Glenn was appointed receiver of the premises and qualified as such. … The evidence clearly shows that the sale of the BelPine Apartments to complainant was greatly beneficial to McCabe and the Lake View State Bank and that it was not beneficial to her, but, on the contrary, was detrimental.

Harbison v. Houghton

41 Ill. 522 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

In no other way could the debt have increased so fast; as it is clearly proved no other money was loaned to Harbison,- except the sum of $1,700 at ten per cent interest, payable annually. … We deem the fact of usury well established by Harbison’s testimony, and by all the strong facts of the case. The court, in its decree, should have found the extent of the usury, and made deduction accordingly.

Wylie v. Bushnell

277 Ill. 484 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1917

his acts as trustee, neither does the decree of the trial court clearly make, or even attempt to make, such a distinction. … We do not agree with counsel for plaintiff in error that the burden necessarily rested upon defendants in error to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, all the allegations of the cross-bill that plaintiff in error

Wexler v. Wirtz Corp.

Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2004

Wexler was clearly aware of the tax increase produced by Public Act 91–38 and its effects on the price of alcoholic beverages. … We noted, however, that the construction company was also challenging the use tax, which it clearly had the right to do.

Zbinden v. BOND CTY. COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DIST.

2 Ill. 2d 232 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1954

Harris was appointed clerk, and each took oath and qualified for the respective offices for which she or he was appointed. … While there was some dispute as to whether all of the ballots had been handed to the voters by the judges, the weight of the evidence was clearly that the judges handed out all or substantially all of the ballots.

In re M.I.

2013 IL 113776 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2013

The court then heard arguments from the parties on whether the State had established probable cause. The court found probable cause had been established. … Our EJJ statute, by contrast, clearly limits the State to filing the EJJ petition before the trial.

Lavin v. Board of Commissioners of Cook County

245 Ill. 496 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1910

Section 6 of the statute above quoted clearly gives the courts of this State the power to appoint special State’s attorneys under some circumstances. … statute in force in 1874 provided as follows: “Whenever any town shall fail to elect the proper number of town officers to which such town may be entitled by law, or when any person elected to any town office shall fail to qualify

Miller v. Rosenberg

Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2001

All statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of rebutting this presumption is on the party challenging the validity of the statute to clearly establish a constitutional violation. Arangold Corp. v. … We hold that Rosenberg has failed to clearly establish that the provisions of section 2–109 violate the proscription against special legislation.

Applebaum v. Rush University Medical Center

Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2008

The plain language of Rule 756, however, clearly refutes such a claim. … Peters, 926 F.2d 668, 669-70 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Lawyers who do not pay their dues violate a legal norm, but not one established for the protection of clients”), Johnson v.

The PEOPLE v. Ciucci

8 Ill. 2d 619 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 23, 1956

Evidence of the death of defendant’s wife and two daughters in the same catastrophe was clearly admissible as a part of the res gestae. (People v. Murphy, 276 Ill. 304 ; Hickam v. People, 137 Ill. 75 .) … The long-established test of former jeopardy, however, is whether the facts charged in the latter indictment would, if found to be true, have justified a conviction under the earlier indictment. (People v.

People v. Flores

128 Ill. 2d 66 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1989

It was clearly a decision related to a trial strategy. … Evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing also established that they were uncertain as to the date when Rosero was shot.

People v. A Parcel of Property Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon County, Illinois

217 Ill. 2d 481 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2005

Because the circuit court found Ramona to be an innocent spouse, claimants contend that she qualifies as an innocent owner under section 8 of the Forfeiture Act. … However, as reflected in the report of proceedings for June 23, 2003, at the close of claimants’ case, a colloquy between the court, the prosecutor, and counsel for claimants clearly indicates that claimants viewed the exhibit

People v. Custer

2019 IL 123339 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 19, 2019

OPINION ¶1 In this appeal, we are asked to extend the procedures we established in People v. … As we recently reiterated, “matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Dupree, 2018 IL 122307, ¶ 44.

DeLuna v. Burciaga

Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

Clearly, section 13B214.3 addresses Aan action@ to which section 13B215 applies. … of action@; however, there is Aa widely recognized exception to this general rule in those instances when the existence of a fiduciary relationship is clearly established@).

First National Bank v. Grant

83 Ill. 2d 379 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1980

The marital deduction, he argues, subtracts from the gross estate of the decedent subject to the Federal tax the value of those assets qualifying as the marital deduction under the Federal tax law. ( 26 U.S.C. sec. 2056 ( … The cases discussed above have established that the Federal estate tax is a claim or a charge against the decedent’s estate, and section 2 — 8(a) provides that the renouncing spouse is entitled to the one-third or one-half

In Re Contest of the Election for the Offices of Governor

93 Ill. 2d 463 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1983

The legislature in the statute now under consideration clearly intended that the three-judge State Election Contest Panel operate collectively as a court. … Clearly these 242 ballots, all being marked with the same three digits, did not contain invalidating distinguishing marks.

Loverin v. McLaughlin

161 Ill. 417 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 12, 1896

This interpretation is in accordance with an established rule of statutory construction, which has been thus expressed: “If in any law we find the omission of something essential to it, or which is a necessary result of its … Page, 24 Ill. 46 , is distinguishable from the case at bar upon grounds which are clearly stated in Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 Ill. 197 , and need not be here repeated. The case of Bushnell v.

Fields Jeep-Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.

163 Ill. 2d 462 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1994

establishment.” 815 ILCS 710/4(e)(8) (West 1992). … In defending the constitutionality of the Act, the Secretary and Ridge (appellants) point to the strong presumption that a statute is constitutional and that one who asserts otherwise has the burden of clearly establishing