Case law

People v. Petitt

245 Ill. App. 3d 132 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 20, 1993

Section 115 — 10(a)(2) “clearly mandates that the testifying witness hear the child’s remark personally.” (People v. Mitchell (1992), 228 Ill. App. 3d 917, 932 .) … Defense counsel attempted to qualify O’Riordan as an expert to render opinions on sexual abuse syndrome. His motion to qualify O’Riordan was refused by the court.

Smith v. St. Therese Hospital

106 Ill. App. 3d 268 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 1982

The hospital’s motion for summary judgment alleged that Abel Swirsky, disclosed by plaintiff as an expert witness to establish the standard of care required of this defendant, was not qualified to testify and also relied … Section 58(3) is intended to insure all parties have an opportunity to fairly and equitably prepare their case in advance of trial, and defendants clearly could not be surprised by the testimony of this witness.

National Fire Insurance v. Kilfoy

375 Ill. App. 3d 530 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 2007

Weller were not clearly defined and that, as a result, Weller evaluated and advised patients who should have been evaluated and advised by Sondheimer. … properly advised by Weller; (6) scheduling surgeries in such a manner to discourage patients from seeking additional preoperative advice from Sondheimer; (7) failing to require written consent by patients; and (8) failing to establish

Rokosik v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago

374 Ill. App. 3d 158 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2007

Accordingly, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to our review of plaintiffs' appeal. See Barry, 357 Ill. … On the other hand, the third paragraph of section 6-151.1 states that a fireman who develops a certain type of cancer may potentially qualify for an occupational disability benefit and does not require that he establish

People ex rel. Nelson v. Peoples State Bank

266 Ill. App. 330 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 4, 1932

With this intendment clearly discernible from the language of the ordinance, it seems reasonably clear that subsection (e) and other portions of section 14 are merely limitations upon the provisions of section 13 of the ordinance … instance could authorize the treasurer to make a general deposit of its funds without security, it could not thereafter ratify his act in making such deposit; and, second, one who seeks to invoke the doctrine of estoppel must establish

People v. McKee

2014 IL App (3d) 130696 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 9, 2015

*** clear that if the source of the information to the reporter is an attorney or a member of the staff of any of the attorneys involved in this matter, that the Supreme Court rules relative to discovery have clearly … In cases other than libel and slander cases in which an individual claims the qualified privilege, the party seeking the information can apply to the circuit court for a divestiture of the qualified privilege

People v. Davisson

35 Ill. App. 3d 887 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1976

unlawful use of weapons and possession of controlled substances; however, when defendant was ultimately brought to trial, on the controlled substances charge alone, his wife testified against him in exchange for transactional immunity … Clearly the officers had probable cause to believe that other contraband would be likely to be in the car.

Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

257 Ill. App. 443 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 1930

App. 134 , it is said: “The witnesses were before the trial judge, who had the benefit of observing the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and was, other things being equal, better qualified to pass upon their … Kemper, 304 Ill. 303 , in which it was inter alia said: “Under the law and established rules of practice the conclusions of the trial judge should not be disturbed unless it clearly appears from the record that such conclusions

People v. Shannon

2024 IL App (1st) 230042 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 2024

Instead, Gray’s “stipulation established the facts that the defendant had been convicted of two prior felonies and that those felonies were qualifying felonies ***.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. … The party challenging the validity of a statute “has the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation.” People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569, 596 (2006).

People v. Lucas

215 Ill. App. 3d 148 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 1991

They cite that as a fact, one of the facts established at trial. In reality it was shown that the explanation by Mr. Lucas was ludicrous ***. … While the trial court did express a personal belief the supreme court’s decision was incorrect, it clearly stated it was bound by the supreme court’s opinion.

People v. Alvidrez

2014 IL App (1st) 121740 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 12, 2014

Thus, he was in no way qualified to render the opinion that defense counsel never asked him for in open court, despite the fact that it may have been in his written report. When the court qualified Dr. … The subject matter here was couched in biomechanical terms that he was clearly not qualified to render and would not have assisted the jury in understanding the evidence or made the question of defendant’s guilt

Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative v. Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative Ass'n

33 Ill. App. 3d 789 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 1975

These cases clearly establish that a school board, authorized by statute to dismiss and retain probationary teachers entirely in its discretion, may not delegate this power by agreeing to dismiss teachers only for just cause … It is an essential part of the Board’s public duty to use only the most qualified teachers for the education of the district children.

Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Topinka

344 Ill. App. 3d 474 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 27, 2003

This was established by a lease executed in 1995 and the purchase of a computer in 1995 which was paid by Domestic [ZDI] and International [ZII]. … The evidence established that Domestic and International had no payroll in 1994. The employment agreement did not commence until January 1, 1995. Mr.

Rock Finance Co. v. Central National Bank

339 Ill. App. 319 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 10, 1950

Plaintiff argues that the term “business” qualifies the word ‘ ‘ day, ’ ’ and limits the number of hours therein to those during which the bank is open for the transaction of business with the public. … The term “business day” therein clearly refers to a non-holiday, and consists of a twenty-four hour period up to midnight.

In re O.B.

2022 IL App (4th) 220419 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 2022

and convincingly establish Father suffered an intellectual disability according to the statutory definition. … Through Tyler’s testimony and report, the State clearly and convincingly established Father’s inability to discharge his - 16 - parental responsibilities and further established

Jacobson v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF CHICAGO

321 Ill. App. 3d 103 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

The Board filed a second motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1—101 et seq. … Plaintiffs responded that their cause of action sounded in contract and, therefore, the Tort Immunity Act was inapplicable.

People v. Beck

2019 IL App (1st) 161626 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 7, 2019

There, the State introduced testimony by an officer who was qualified as a gang expert. Id. ¶ 82. … But we never said Wyroba’s testimony was inadmissible; rather, we concluded it was insufficient to establish a necessary element of the offense because Wyroba was never qualified as an expert.

People v. Woods

237 N.E.3d 1110 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2024

¶ 11 David and Funches testified before the grand jury in exchange for immunity. … As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues and argument clearly defined, and it is not our obligation to act as an advocate for defendant. People v.

People v. Ellis

39 Ill. App. 3d 373 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 10, 1976

‘[B]ased both on precedent and reason, we believe that in order to sustain his position here the defendant must clearly establish: (1) actual incompetence of counsel, as reflected by the manner of carrying out his duties … It is clear that any opinion the State’s Attorney expressed was clearly based on the evidence adduced at the trial.

Gibrick v. Skolnik

254 Ill. App. 3d 970 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 1993

It is an opinion which we, being judges and not doctors, are not qualified to enunciate. … The trial court proceedings had in this case clearly indicated his incompetency to testify because he did not fulfill the second requirement of the Northern Trust case. The testimony established that Dr.