Case law

Moore v. Moyle

405 Ill. 555 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1950

The decisions in the Parks and the Chicago Lying-In Hospital cases clearly extend the immunity to all funds held in trust for the charitable purposes of the charity, but in no case has the question of whether nontrust funds … Appellee cites many cases from other jurisdictions to support its contention that* the procuring of liability insurance or the existence of nontrust fund assets does not waive or qualify the immunity of a charitable corporation

Jinkins v. Lee

209 Ill. 2d 320 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 18, 2004

The Court of Claims Act establishes such a court to serve as a forum for actions against the state. 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002). … Here, the complaint is clearly directed to the alleged failure of Dr. Lee and Medlin to abide by their respective standards of care in their evaluation of George.

Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc.

2018 IL 123025 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2019

(West 2016)) for “the purpose of establishing and operating a voluntary health services plan and providing other medically related services” (id. § 2(a)). … Plaintiff asserts, for example, that UHS is the only remaining entity that remains eligible to claim the immunity, while UHS argues that two additional entities also still qualify.

Deere v. Chapman

25 Ill. 610 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1861

He also contends,' that if there be room for construction, such a statute as this, giving new rights and immunities, and of doubtful policy, ought not, thereby, to be extended beyond the plain import of the terms used, and … There may be an absolute ownership, and a qualified ownership of both descriptions of property, and the one is as fully recognized as the other.

Sandholm v. Kuecker

2012 IL 111443 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2012

The legislative history of the Act further supports our conclusion that the legislature intended to target only meritless, retaliatory SLAPPs and did not intend to establish a new absolute or qualified privilege … In light of the severe penalties imposed on a plaintiff under the Act, we will not read into the statute an intent to establish a new, qualified privilege absent an explicit statement of such intent. ¶ 52

West v. Kirkham

147 Ill. 2d 1 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1992

Rather, section 3 — 104 clearly and unequivocally states that the municipality is immune from all liability arising out of the failure to provide a particular traffic control device. … The legislature thus clearly intended to enlarge the scope of section 3 — 104’s immunity and to immunize absolutely the failure to initially provide a traffic control device, even where such failure might “endanger the safe

Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District

Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

Clearly, Bi-State is a form of “local government body” as referenced in section 1–206 of the Tort Immunity Act. See F. Zimmerman & M. … Clearly, the one-year statute of limitations provided by section 8–101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act furthers or supports Bi- State and does not burden it. 1.

Sandholm v. Kuecker

356 Ill. Dec. 733 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2012

The legislative history of the Act further supports our conclusion that the legislature intended to target only meritless, retaliatory SLAPPs and did not intend to establish a new absolute or qualified privilege for defamation … In light of the severe penalties imposed on a plaintiff under the Act, we will not read into the statute an intent to establish a new, qualified privilege absent an explicit statement of such intent. ¶ 52 Several of the defendants

Monson v. City of Danville

2018 IL 122486 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2019

The court further held the City adequately established its immunity from liability pursuant to sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. … In so holding, this court reached the unremarkable conclusion that the immunity of section 3-104 was not limited and that it “clearly and unequivocally states that the municipality is immune from all liability

Loman v. Freeman

229 Ill. 2d 104 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2008

“A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with relevant authority cited.” In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489, 517 (2004). … Defendant mentioned the Moorman issue, but neither clearly defined it nor argued its merits. We, therefore, find the issue forfeited.

Sylvester v. Chicago Park District

179 Ill. 2d 500 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1997

The Park District alleged that its pregame traffic control and parking lot setup routine around Soldier Field qualified as an "inspection system” under section 3 — 102(b). … The court stated that even if it were to take judicial notice of the location of Burnham Park, the Park District still failed to carry its burden of establishing a section 3 — 106 affirmative defense.

Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

2019 IL 124283 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2019

If the answer is “no,” then the District has not established its affirmative defense of immunity under section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act. … of establishing discretionary immunity under sections 2-109 and 2-201.

James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC

250 N.E.3d 251 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2024

The court remanded the cause to the circuit court, which it found to be in the best position to evaluate the evidence and determine whether Bria qualifies for statutory immunity … This statement is clearly incorrect.

Fraser v. Universities Research Ass'n

188 Ill. 2d 444 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1999

While the focus of the Campground Licensing Act is clearly campground regulation, it also applies specifically to recreational areas. … In 1987, amendments to the Recreational Use Act and the Campground Licensing Act effected changes which indicate both a legislative intent to broaden the category of land qualifying for the immunity of the Recreational Use

Schultz v. St. Clair County

460 Ill. Dec. 638 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2022

Plaintiff alleged that the ETSB acted in reckless disregard for decedent’s safety by failing to manage the selection of dispatchers to ensure qualified employees were providing 911 services. … ¶ 52 In terms of police protection, section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides as follows: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a

Alave v. City of Chicago

2023 IL 128602 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2023

This court asserted—in the context of pedestrian use— that “the Illinois legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries which occur … Rather, the City contends that foreseeability has no relevance to intended use of its property but, rather, is a separate requirement for establishing a duty under section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act

Rios v. Jones

63 Ill. 2d 488 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 28, 1976

Section 13a as it now stands clearly contemplates two types of examination. … The privileges and immunities clause is intended to prevent unreasonable discrimination by a State against citizens of other States.

Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook

191 Ill. 2d 493 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2000

In sum, our review of plaintiffs 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

Harris v. Thompson

976 N.E.2d 999 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2012

of first impression where the resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. … PPG Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d 1312, 1314-15 (7th Cir. 1984). ¶ 32 Also, we do not decide an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

Murray v. Chicago Youth Center

Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2007

Collins had no license or certificate qualifying him as a trampoline instructor or teacher. … Rabinoff’s opinion, Collins was not qualified to teach tumbling. Dr.