Case law

City of Champaign v. Madigan

992 N.E.2d 629 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2013

question of fact and law for which the standard of review is “ ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” Goodman v. … That kind of decision would be subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, with deference given to the administrative decision.

People v. J.R.

341 Ill. App. 3d 784 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2003

Disclosure under the Notification Law clearly communicates truthful, accurate information about the offender to the public. … The respondent qualifies as a “sex offender” subject to the registration requirements of the Registration Act.

Forsberg v. Edward Hospital & Health Services

389 Ill. App. 3d 434 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 2009

Even if the section 2 — 622 report qualified as an affidavit under Rule 191(a), it did not meet all the requirements of the rule. The report referred to the medical records that Dr. … The section 2 — 622 report was pertinent to deciding whether the complaint alleged conduct that was within the tort immunity statute.

Ghini v. Highwood-Highland Park Elementary School District No. 111

129 Ill. App. 3d 671 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 1984

The statute recites further that any military establishment situated within the boundaries of Illinois is “in this State,” even though the Federal government may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the installation. … More importantly, an examination of the statutory enactments to which we have referred above establishes clearly (1) that the legislature has extended the voting franchise to persons residing on a military reservation located

People v. Cissna

170 Ill. App. 3d 398 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 1988

Defendant was placed on 30 months’ probation for the theft conviction after the court warned defendant he qualified for an extended-term sentence on this conviction. … In the present case, the record clearly establishes defendant was sentenced on the original sentences.

People v. Kastman

335 Ill. App. 3d 87 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2002

To this end, “ ‘ “ [w]here the spirit and intent of the General Assembly in adopting an act are clearly expressed and its objects and purposes are clearly set forth, courts are not bound by the literal language of a particular … Inasmuch as respondent is the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute, he bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional violation. See People v.

People v. Stevens

993 N.E.2d 62 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 2013

These similarities across the offenses are enough to qualify as “general areas of similarity.” See Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 184. … The immunity against self- incrimination, however, may be waived by a defendant who wishes to testify as a witness. People v. Parchman, 302 Ill. App. 3d 627, 635 (1998) (citing Brown v.

In re Jennice L.

460 Ill. Dec. 239 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2021

. ¶6 At the hearing, Martinez was found to be an expert in psychiatry and qualified to provide expert testimony. … Such a claim “does not qualify for the public interest exception.” See In re Torry G., 2014 IL App (1st) 130709, ¶ 28.

People v. Cole

132 Ill. App. 2d 1041 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1971

“It was a cardinal rule at common law that jurors, to be qualified as impartial, should stand indifferent between the parties and be wholly free from even the suspicion of bias * * At 497; 31 N.E.2d at 939 . … Thus, while error can be harmless, it is clearly established in Chapman and the many cases referring to it, that basic and fundamental constitutional protections are not to be eroded as harmless error.

People v. Douglas

183 Ill. App. 3d 241 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 1989

Even the transcript of the initial telephone call to the police established she was frightened and hysterical. … We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying her as an expert.

In Re Petition to Annex Certain Territory to the Village of Round Lake Park

29 Ill. App. 3d 651 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 1975

petitioners are not bona fide "owners” of the lands sought to be annexed, but are mere title holders who are grantees from a trust which previously held title to the land and are petitioners here merely for the purpose of qualifying … However, no case we know of has held that a fee title owner under a recorded deed did not qualify as an “owner” or “owner of-record,” for the purposes of this or similarly worded statutes.

Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas

105 Ill. App. 3d 28 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 23, 1982

Although Trígona concedes that the instant action alleges the same cause of action asserted in his Federal complaint, he contends that the prior Federal adjudication does not operate as a bar under well-established principles … Clearly, had Trigona’s original action been brought in State court, section 24 would have permitted the commencement of the instant action, since there would have been no adjudication on the merits under Supreme Court Rule

Rode v. Village of Northbrook

123 Ill. App. 3d 436 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 5, 1984

But in order to qualify as a special use for a planned development a proposal would in any event have to meet the zoning ordinance criteria established for that classification. (Ill. Rev. … Neither at trial nor on appeal has Rode contended that he even attempted to establish that his proposal would have provided any of these benefits so as to qualify it as a planned development.

People v. Spear

24 Ill. App. 3d 818 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1974

The first accomplice, who had pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of marijuana, was granted immunity in return for voluntarily giving a statement which incriminated defendant, and the disposition on his plea had not been … Defendant argues that such preclusion prevented him from establishing possible facts that might have further shown “bias” on the part of one of the accomplices and render his testimony unbelievable.

People v. Terry

177 Ill. App. 3d 185 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 1988

In the case at bar, defendant never clearly and unequivocally expressed a desire to proceed pro se. … Even if we adopt defendant’s analysis, the 1971 conviction would qualify as a Class X felony. A review of that conviction establishes that defendant used a knife while committing the rape.

Fermi National Accelerator Lab v. Industrial Commission

224 Ill. App. 3d 899 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 15, 1992

The Commission concluded the evidence did not clearly establish that some of the payments qualified for section 8(j) credit. … Industrial Comm’n (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 52 , 541 N.E.2d 665 , respondent argues claimant failed to establish that his initial injury, stepping off a stoop, arose out of his employment.

Craftmasters, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

207 Ill. Dec. 376 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 1995

The Act allows an exemption for building materials incorporated into real property within an enterprise zone, but clearly the materials must be purchased within the jurisdiction which created the enterprise zone in order … to qualify for the exemption.

Carter v. Azaran

332 Ill. App. 3d 948 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2002

Defendant argues that the questions posed, in conjunction with the stipulated medical records, clearly demonstrate that the purpose of the questioning was to establish that, even after receiving adequate treatment of his … Because defendant failed to lay a foundation establishing either that Dr.

Schoneberg v. Grundy County Special Education Cooperative

67 Ill. App. 3d 899 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 10, 1979

Defendants contend plaintiff has failed to establish that she applied and was qualified for the fourth-grade position while plaintiff argues to the contrary. … In light of the foregoing, we believe the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that plaintiff was qualified for the fourth-grade position and the Commission erred in holding to the contrary.

Juresic v. Department of Human Services

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 2002

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The Department claims that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue an injunction. … Article XIII, section 4, of the Illinois Constitution abolished sovereign immunity but, gave the General Assembly the power to provide for immunity by law. Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, §4.