Case law

Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin

93 Ill. 2d 241 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1982

Partee (1979), 74 Ill. 2d 371, 375 ), the qualifying phrase “in this State” modifies the immediate preceding word “messages.” … Some statutes utilize words that clearly envision that their operation and scope are to change with changes in the underlying law without the need for further approval by the legislature.

Piccioli v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System

2019 IL 122905 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2020

Advancement of the State’s economic goals clearly is a legitimate rationale for legislation. … We concluded, “there is no reason ‘for restricting the advantages’ of the legislation to a district with characteristics currently qualifying and ‘not extending the same advantages to those districts’ qualifying

Illinois State Treausrer v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

391 Ill. Dec. 18 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2015

immunity with regard to workers’ compensation matters … ¶ 33 This waiver of immunity is not absolute, but in those limited instances where the legislature wished to preserve its immunity and exempt the State from the normal requirements of the workers’ compensation

People v. White

2011 IL 109689 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2011

That procedure required a two-step sequence for resolving government officials’ qualified immunity claims. … Saucier required that the analysis of a qualified immunity issue be undertaken in that specified sequence.

Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort

166 Ill. 2d 155 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 1995

The appellate court also opined that the costs of guarding against injury "clearly suggest the imposition of a duty in the pedestrian-defect type of case." ( 258 Ill.App.3d at 433-34 , 196 Ill.Dec. 591 , 630 N.E.2d 526 .) … Although we are sympathetic to plaintiff's injuries, the Illinois legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries which occur as a result of unintended

People v. Fane

454 Ill. Dec. 805 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2021

According to the instruction’s unambiguous language, a witness does not qualify as an “accomplice” - 15 -  for purposes of IPI Criminal No. 3.17 unless he commits … Norman’s credibility was clearly suspect, and in such a case, the trial judge should have discretion to decide whether to advise the jury to accept an accomplice’s testimony with caution.

Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp.

146 Ill. 2d 155 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1992

While recognizing that the Workers’ Compensation Act gives an employer immunity from tort actions by its employees, this court, in Doyle, found that there is no bar to a claim for contribution from that employer by a defendant … The potential for tort liability exists until the defense is established.” Doyle, 101 Ill. 2d at 10-11 .

McKibben v. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank

365 Ill. 369 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1937

Mc-Kibben was duly admitted to probate and record and the bank therein named as executor qualified and entered upon its duties as trustee. … An estate will vest at the earliest possible time, and will be held to vest at the death of the testator unless some later time is clearly expressed in the will or appears by necessary implication. (Stevens v.

In Re Alschuler

388 Ill. 492 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1944

He refused to answer the questions propounded to him until he was granted immunity from prosecution under the Securities and Exchange Act. … After he was granted such immunity by the general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he testified.

The People v. Barnett

347 Ill. 127 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1931

The testimony constituted a link in a chain of circumstances to establish the conspiracy and was relevant to the issue. … them the immunity bath.”

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board

284 Ill. 378 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1918

Having established a fixed compensation against employers under the act, section 3 places those employers under the act and those rejecting it on the same level as to defenses, by providing that in any action to recover damages … It is true that Adrian had been exposed to practically the same conditions for many years without injury, but it would not be unreasonable to conclude that his immunity was because of the state of his health and his ability

People v. Olinger

Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1997

Stalder would receive absolute immunity on the Illinois burglary from Mr. Spencer, Mr. … Therefore, the statement does not qualify to be admitted as substantive evidence under this exception to the hearsay rule.

Gallagher v. Lenart

Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2007

We agree that a claim to enforce a workers’ compensation lien qualifies as a “claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act” in the abstract. … Dismantling Co., 20 Ohio St. 3d 61, 65, 485 N.E.2d 1047, 1051 (1985) (“The statutory and constitutional immunity granted to complying employers is crucial to workers’ compensation law. *** [B]efore this immunity may be considered

Studt v. Sherman Health Systems

351 Ill. Dec. 467 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011

Specifically, the Hospital argued: "In exchanging `possess and apply the knowledge and use the skill and care ordinarily used by a reasonably well qualified' professional for `reasonably careful,' the I.P.I. … The record clearly shows, however, that professional negligence was not the only theory under which plaintiffs sought recovery from Sherman Hospital.

Harding v. Albert

373 Ill. 94 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1939

Where the spirit and intention of the legislature in adopting the acts are clearly expressed and their objects and purposes are clearly set forth, the courts are not confined to the literal meaning of the words used, when … Any qualified elector of the senatorial district may contest the election of a member of the General Assembly from that district by virtue of section 105 of the same law. Ill. Rev Stat. 1939, chap. 46, par. 108.

People ex rel. Healy v. Clean Street Co.

225 Ill. 470 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1907

The ordinance in this case, which is the basis of the contract, and the subsequent resolution of the city council, clearly attempt to confer upon George H. … It is provided by section 22 of article 4, supra, of the constitution, that the General Assembly shall not pass a law granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or

Memorial Gardens Ass'n, Inc. v. Smith

16 Ill. 2d 116 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1959

Liberty implies only the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community. - (Crowley v. … If the establishment of a trust is a proper method to protect the public interest and welfare in the one instance, it is not improper in the other.

Concerned Citizens & Property Owners v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

2026 IL 131026 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2026

¶ 19 As the ICC found, under section 8-406(b-5), GBX is a “qualifying direct current applicant,” and its project is a “qualifying direct current project.” Grain Belt Express, Ill. Comm. … A reversal of an ICC order is not appropriate on a mere “showing that the evidence may support a different conclusion; it must be shown that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.”

State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc.

2024 IL 128763 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2024

“ ‘If a practice is within the per se category, all you have to prove to establish a violation is that the defendant engaged in the practice; you do not have to show that in fact the practice has had … Because Rahl appeared before the legislature as a proponent of the bill the legislature enacted, we find that his article qualifies as some evidence concerning the intent of the legislation. William N.

Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

392 Ill. Dec. 275 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2015

That is something they clearly have authority to do in furtherance of the University’s educational mission. … Immunity from suit in the circuit courts is established by the Immunity Act, not the Court of Claims Act. See, e.g., Brandon v. Bonell, 368 Ill.