Case law

Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1

381 Ill. App. 3d 207 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2008

Thus, we cannot determine whether the District would have immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. … To establish this claim of direct negligence, plaintiffs do not have to show that the attack was committed within the scope of employment.

Swank v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 13, 2003

Section 15--35 provides that property "used with a view to profit" does not qualify for the exemption. … Plaintiffs cite the burial purposes exemption for the proposition that the legislature has established property tax exemptions favoring for-profit enterprises.

Burnette v. Stroger

329 Ill. Dec. 101 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2009

Immunity is provided by the Public and Appellate Defender Immunity Act for professional malpractice, other than wilful and wanton misconduct. 745 ILCS 19/5 (West 2006). … The president claims that this provision “does not clearly specify the appropriate mechanism by which an appropriation may be restricted or terminated.”

People v. Mason

219 Ill. App. 3d 76 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 1991

Such evidence is admissible in cases where the proffered evidence is so clearly connected with the main issue in the case at bar as to tend to prove the accused guilty of the offense charged. (People v. … Such evidence has no relevance when a court decides whether a witness is qualified under section 115 — 14 to testify.

Selof v. Island Foods, Inc.

251 Ill. App. 3d 675 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 1993

App. 3d 637, 643 (right to file personal injury lawsuit was a purely personal right not involving clearly mandated public policy).) … It is possible that under qualifying circumstances a recovering alcoholic or substance abuser may conceivably have a statutory cause of action based on disability or handicap under State (see, e.g., Habinka v.

Green v. Department of Public Aid

165 Ill. App. 3d 936 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 1988

Whitney questioned why Green could not apply a portion of her noriexempt assets to the outstanding medical bills and thereby qualify for assistance. … Section 5 — 2 further provides: “The Department shall by rule establish the amounts of assets to be disregarded in determining eligibility for medical assistance, for which federal reimbursement is available under Title XIX

Quality Saw & Seal, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

374 Ill. App. 3d 776 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2007

Section 2.3 does not specify a threshold amount of material to be “moved, removed, or otherwise displaced” for it to qualify as excavation. … Also, Quality Saw does not attempt to establish the ambiguity of section 2.3 before resorting to regulations, foreign statutes, and cases as interpretive aids.

People v. Cortez

338 Ill. App. 3d 122 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2003

Thus, the record clearly shows that the State filed its motion to dismiss beyond the time limit set forth in section 122 — 5. … Hendrix, 54 Ill. 2d 165, 169 (1973), where it specifically stated that “section 7 does not provide a grant of immunity from prosecution as a sanction for its violation.”

Van Campen v. International Business MacHines Corp.

326 Ill. App. 3d 963 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 2001

Since 1989, Van Campen has suffered from an immune deficiency which caused him to be more susceptible to, and ill from, minor illnesses. … We find that the Commission’s holdings that Van Campen was not handicapped under the Act and that he failed to make a prima facie case of handicap discrimination were not clearly erroneous.

Oak Forest Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. City of Oak Forest

27 Ill. App. 3d 303 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 1975

Another qualified real estate appraiser called by plaintiff, Joseph A. … Trayser, a qualified planning consultant.

Benuska v. Dahl

87 Ill. App. 3d 911 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 22, 1980

Litigants are granted the right to examine prospective jurors on voir dire to enable them to select a jury composed of men and women who are qualified and competent to determine the facts in issue without bias, prejudice, … Finally, it was clearly prejudicial for the evidence pertaining to intoxication to be introduced all at once near the end of trial and out of the normal order of proofs.

Mele v. Howmedica, Inc.

348 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 15, 2004

Moreover, the section provides manufacturers with virtual immunity from liability for all medical products. … Under section 6(c), the fact that the device remains useful for some patients would immunize the manufacturer from liability. Rare indeed is the device that can never prove useful for any patients.

People v. Embry

177 Ill. App. 3d 96 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 1988

We conclude defendant has not established any constitutional infirmity in his conviction. … The court also found the suggestive statements made to the high school student four days earlier constituted an incident sufficiently similar in nature, time, and context to qualify as evidence of modus operandi to establish

Osborne v. Leonard

99 Ill. App. 2d 391 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 19, 1968

The plaintiff states that the verdict completely disregards proper elements of damages which she claims were clearly established by the evidence. … This was clearly a violation of Supreme Court Rule 234. Christian v. New York Cent. R. R., 28 Ill App2d 57, 170 NE2d 183 .

People v. Lipscomb

215 Ill. App. 3d 413 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 1991

If the matches are improperly declared and this evidence is stricken, then the evidence is clearly insufficient. … Thus, section 5 — 8—4 of the Corrections Code clearly mandates consecutive sentences.

Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 2000

It has no office, place of business, mailing address, bank account, telephone listing, real estate or personal property in Illinois, does not pay taxes of any kind in Illinois, is not licensed or qualified to do business … To reject the conspiracy in all cases has the effect of giving those outside Illinois who have perpetrated an Illinois tort through the agency of others a potentially unfair immunity from suit.

Biogenetics, Ltd. v. Department of Public Health

91 Ill. App. 3d 615 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 1980

Biogenetics maintains that in order to establish that there was a substantial failure to comply, it is incumbent upon the Department to establish that the conduct of Biogenetics has resulted in injury to the public safety … The record clearly indicates that the procedures were performed under the direct supervision and observation of a licensed physician.

Alvarez v. Williams

2014 IL App (1st) 133443 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 29, 2015

Clearly, as discussed above, the legislature intended to keep individuals convicted of infamous crimes from ever holding office in the first place. … There is clearly a rational basis for this disparity and defendant’s equal protection claim fails. ¶ 20 Defendant further fails to establish that his equal protection rights were violated by plaintiff’

People v. Westefer

169 Ill. App. 3d 59 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1988

The State responds that the testimony was hearsay and clearly designed to place defendant’s alibi before the jury without calling defendant to testify. … The State further maintains that there was adequate evidence to establish a proper foundation and chain of custody and that there was sufficient evidence to establish the connection between the work pants, the paper bag,

Ruiz v. City of Chicago

366 Ill. App. 3d 947 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2006

Based on review of these documents and his experience as a paramedic, Ligouri opined that he was qualified to testify as to the standard of care in Cook County, Illinois. … However, as discussed below, we do not find this to be the case and review the trial court’s decision to exclude Ligouri under an abuse of discretion standard as clearly outlined in Gill and Sullivan.