Case law

Kavales v. City of Berwyn

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 1999

Thus, in the case at bar, looking to the property itself, it is clearly intended for use by pedestrians. … The testimony was not sufficiently detailed or specific enough to establish evidence of a routine business practice.

Huskey v. MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ELECTORAL BD., VILLAGE OF OAK LAWN

156 Ill. App. 3d 201 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 20, 1987

A petition includes sheets containing signatures of qualified primary electors “in their own proper persons only.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 46, par. 10—4.) … Testimony established that many of the affidavits on the sheets were signed by someone other than the person who actually presented the sheets to the signers.

Farm Progress Show Concessions v. Department of Revenue

83 Ill. App. 3d 228 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1980

The “occasional dinners” exception is clearly stated in the Act obviating the need to resort to statutory construction or legislative history. … Since the payments made were clearly not excessive they do not tend to disprove that all the profits were used for religious purposes.

Smith v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Co.

143 Ill. App. 128 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 21, 1908

While a single act or omission does not necessarily establish incompetency as a matter of law, such act or omission may tend so strongly to prove a person to be careless, imprudent and unfitted for a particular position, … If, however, his subsequent incompetency can be said to have been established, such statements were admissible as tending to show notice to appellant of such fact at the time they were made.

Barton v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.

325 Ill. App. 3d 1005 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 2001

established by the [RTA] pursuant to Section 2.04 of this Agreement. … Defendants claim that Barton’s expert was not qualified. 14 Defendants cite Jones v.

Thomas v. Chicago Transit Authority

2014 IL App (1st) 122402 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 6, 2015

Upon good cause shown, an employee could request a one-year extension to establish a qualified residence prior to the expiration of the original six-month period. ¶4 Thomas was hired by the CTA in June … The clearly erroneous standard of review is applied when the facts are “admitted or established, the controlling rule of law is undisputed” and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal standard.

Goetz v. Avildsen Tool & MacHines, Inc.

82 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 27, 1980

Board of Education (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 93 , 187 N.E.2d 722 ), clearly establish that Avildsen’s duty to plaintiff flows from the employment relationship. … The record in this case clearly establishes that plaintiff, through exercise of discovery procedures, had ample opportunity to ascertain the identity of any component parts manufacturers.

Pisano v. Giordano

106 Ill. App. 3d 138 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1982

However, that status was rather clearly established on the record, which showed that plaintiff had filed an objection to a proposed change in location of a savings and loan with the Director of Financial Institutions, had … App. 2d 401 , 257 N.E.2d 9 (plaintiff is not required to plead and prove facts sufficient to establish standing, they need only be apparent from the record).)

Johnson v. Loyola University Medical Center

384 Ill. App. 3d 115 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2008

App. 3d 901, 910-11 (1996). “ ‘This is clearly a very difficult standard to meet, limiting the power of the circuit court to reverse a jury verdict to extreme situations only.’ ” Jones v. … This court upheld the entry of a judgment n.o.v. on the basis that the experts’ opinions failed to establish proximate cause.

People v. Donatelli

176 Ill. App. 3d 1086 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 6, 1988

Defendant contends in this appeal that the evidence established his mere presence and was, therefore, insufficient to sustain his conviction. … Clearly the offense of gambling was committed in Cheshier’s basement on the night of April 5-6, 1987.

Perschall v. Raney

137 Ill. App. 3d 978 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1985

If any past or present infestation or damage is noted on this report, it is recommended that the owner, or other interested parties, contact a qualified engineer, architect or other qualified expert in the construction or … This was the position taken by the McAfee court, and while not articulated quite so clearly, the same position was taken in Grass.

People v. Kelly

73 Ill. App. 2d 142 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 11, 1966

If Backley was granted immunity from punishment for the crime in consideration of his testimony, every person accused of the crime against whom he testified had the right to show that he had been granted such immunity, .. … Such is clearly not the law of Illinois which allows conviction upon the testimony of an accomplice even if not corroborated. People v. Rudnicki, 394 Ill 351 (1946).”

McFarland v. O'Dekirk

2024 IL App (3d) 230446-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 2024

¶ 21 In response, Connolly argues McFarland failed to establish the unconstitutionality of Connolly’s appointment as inspector general. … The City is clearly a “local public entity”; however, it is unclear whether the City’s inspector general is a “public employee.

Chicago Police Sergeants' Assocation Policemen's Benevolent & Protective Assocation v. Pallohusky

2017 IL App (1st) 162822 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 2017

Article 5 establishes a “[w]idow’s [a]nnuity” for the surviving spouses of police officers who retire or die while in service. 40 ILCS 5/5-134 (West 2014). … Through use of the disjunctive “or,” subsection (a) of that section establishes two independent exemptions: the first for an interest in a “retirement plan” if it “is intended in good faith to qualify as a retirement

Nettles v. Allstate Insurance Co.

980 N.E.2d 103 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 29, 2012

The trial court’s determination that Allstate met its burden of establishing that plaintiffs’ primary job duties came within the first part of the administrative exemption is not clearly erroneous. … The trial court’s determination that Allstate met its burden of establishing that plaintiffs’ primary job duties came within the second part of the administrative exemption is not clearly erroneous. ¶

Village of Chadwick v. Nelson

2017 IL App (2d) 170064 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2018

The trial court rejected Talea’s contention that her farm qualified for immunity under the Act. … For example, the definition in section 2 contains no restrictions on the type or scope of agricultural activity necessary to qualify as a “farm.”

Weisbrod v. Lowitz

282 Ill. App. 252 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 12, 1935

Considering the evidence as having established that defendants were brokers acting for plaintiff in this transaction, are they amenable to the Illinois Securities Law? … It clearly is aimed at those, who sell stock not qualified. In every transaction of this nature there are' two parties — a buyer and a seller.

Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board v. Chicago Bar Ass'n

128 Ill. App. 3d 798 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 1984

candidate is qualified.” … Once a qualified privilege is established, the party seeking disclosure must show a “particular need” for the information. Equal Employment Opportunity Com. v.

Wells & French Co. v. Novak

73 Ill. App. 403 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 14, 1898

stringing wire to the east of that machine, the bull-dozer, could have been done without interfering with the work of the bull-dozer I” The question was objected to on the ground that the witness had not been shown to be qualified … The four witnesses, one of whom appears to be wholly disinterested, are in direct conflict with appellee, and their evidence tends strongly to establish contributory negligence of appellee which would debar his right of recovery

People v. Evans

2016 IL App (3d) 140120 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 16, 2016

He’s told us very clearly he’s not going to answer any more questions. THE COURT: He did answer some questions. … The mere potential for a mistrial is not enough to establish that the trial court abused its discretion.