Case law

People v. Evans & Meeks

Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1996

United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208, 221 (D.C. Cir. 1975); see People v. Hale, 82 Ill. 2d 172 (1980). … In other words, the Wilk court allowed Brown to challenge only his sentence by filing a motion to reconsider the sentence. This aspect of Wilk was reaffirmed in People v. Wallace, 143 Ill. 2d 59 (1991).

People ex rel. Zilm v. Doe

256 Ill. 579 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1912

In the town of Peru the board of highway commissioners filed their certificate, together with the written consent of the board of town auditors and the assessor, with the town clerk for an additional levy of twenty-five cents … People v. DeKalb and Great Western Railroad Co. (ante, p. 290;) People v. Cairo, Vincennes and Chicago Railway Co. (ante, p. 286.)

Campbell v. McLain

318 Ill. 610 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1925

Tyler v. Tyler, 19 Ill. 151 , decided in 1856, American Board of Comrs. v. … The court followed Tyler v. Tyler, supra, and American Board of Comrs. v.

Inskip v. Trustees, Univ. of Ill.

26 Ill. 2d 501 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1962

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. … Adamowski v. Daley, 22 Ill. App. 2d 87 ; Smith v. Board of Education, 405 Ill. 143, 148 .

Paullin v. Judson

40 Ill. 274 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

In February, 1864, one Drinlde put a small building on the land for the defendant, about ten by twelve, of rough boards, running up and down, and with a board roof. It was occupied by defendant’s family a short time. … This fact brings this ease directly within the doctrine of the case of Hinchman v. Whetstone, 23 Ill. 190 .

Wabash Railroad v. People ex rel. Patterson

187 Ill. 289 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1900

In O’Day v. … (O’Day v. People, supra).

McJilton v. Love

13 Ill. 486 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1851

Brown v. Joy, 9 Johns. 221 ; Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Id. 99. … S. v. Bank of Washington, 6 Peters, 8 ; Clark v. Pinney, 6 Cowen, 297; Green v. Stone, 1 Harris & Johnson, 405; McLagan v. Brown, 11 Ill. 519 ; Steelman v. Cheeseman, Pennington’s Rep. 120; Hubbel v.

VanWatermeullen v. Industrial Commission

343 Ill. 73 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1931

Rockford Hotel Co. v. Industrial Com. 300 Ill. 87 ; Peoria Railway Terminal Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 id. 352; Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Industrial Com. supra. … (Decatur Railway and Light Co. v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 472 .)

People ex rel. Eastman v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

310 Ill. 495 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1923

We have held that any action of the board in levying the tax must be taken before the first Tuesday in August, otherwise there can be no tax legally levied. (People v. Wabash Railway Co. 296 Ill. 518 ; People v. … It was held in People v. Ross, 272 Ill. 63 , People v. New York Central Railroad Co. 271 id. 231, People v. Cairo, Vincennes and Chicago Railway Co. 266 id. 557, and People v.

People ex rel. Miller v. Murphy

185 Ill. 623 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1900

Second—That this court held in George v. … It is true, as held by this court in Lamkin v.

Howlett v. Scott

69 Ill. 2d 135 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1977

(Gromer Supermarket, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1972), 6 Ill. App. 3d 1036 .) There was no indication by the Attorney General of an intent to prosecute a constructive trust action against the Secretary of State. … Ct. 2100 ; Hanes Corp. v. Millard (D.C.

Walker v. Tucker

70 Ill. 527 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1873

D. 1865, by and between Chauncey Tucker and Henry Tucker, by Thomas Brown, their attorney in fact, and Thomas Brown, of the city of Buffalo, and State of Hew York, (partners, under the name, style and firm of Tucker, Brown … Benjamin v. McConnell, 4 Gilm. 536 ; Smith v. Brown, 5 id. 309; Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 232 .

People Ex Rel. Gutknecht v. City of Chicago

414 Ill. 600 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1953

City of Chicago v. Board of County Comrs. of Cook County, 355 Ill. 245 .) … Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 ; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343 ; People v. Mueller, 352 Ill. 124 ; Amberson v. Amberson, 349 Ill. 249 ; Kowalczyk v. Swift & Co. 329 Ill. 308 .

Neef v. City of Springfield

380 Ill. 275 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1942

That burden is not shifted by reason of the fact that the zoning board recommended a change. (Behnke v. Village of Brookfield, 366 Ill. 516 .) … (Michigan-Lake Building Corp. v. Hamilton, supra; Minkus v. Pond, 326 Ill. 467 ; Behnke v. Village of Brookfield, supra; Speroni v. Board of Appeals of the City of Sterling, 368 Ill. 568 ; City of Aurora v.

Metheny v. Pickel

310 Ill. 309 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1923

(Gant v. Brown, 238 Mo. 560 ; see, also, p. 568; 20 Corpus Juris, 254, and authorities cited.) … (See Schuler v. Hogan, 168 Ill. 369 ; Choisser v. York, 211 id. 56.)

Troutman v. City of Zeigler

327 Ill. 251 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1927

In Carlyle v. Bartels, 315 Ill. 271 , County of Adams v. … The general subject of exemption of school property from special assessments for local improvements has been fully discussed and decided by this court in Board of Education v.

Anderson v. Hyster Company

74 Ill. 2d 364 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1979

(Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co. (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 418, 425 .) Reasonable foreseeability of the misuse is measured by an objective standard (Williams v. … (Lewis v.

Gerrity v. Beatty

71 Ill. 2d 47 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1978

(Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 165 ; Mroczynski v. McGrath (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 451 ; Nudd v. Matsoukas (1956), 7 Ill. 2d 608 .) … Fustin v. Board of Education (1968), 101 Ill.

Ownby v. City of Mattoon

306 Ill. 552 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1923

City of Elmhurst v. Hohmeyer, 297 Ill. 430 . … (City of Marengo v. Eichler, 245 Ill. 47 .)

Chicago & Alton Railroad v. People ex rel. Weber

99 Ill. 464 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1881

In the case of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. v. … It was assessed by the board of equalization as railroad track, and like this it was assessed as land by the local assessor.