Case law

People v. Fox

464 Ill. Dec. 262 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 2, 2022

She later spoke with the police under an immunity agreement and provided a detailed statement consistent with her testimony. … “A decision is manifestly erroneous ‘when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 98, 996 N.E.2d 617). ¶ 122 2.

People v. Williams

128 Ill. App. 3d 384 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 22, 1984

Rudnick did not have sufficient experience to qualify as an expert in bite-mark comparison. It is within the trial court’s discretion whether an individual is qualified to testify as an expert. (People v. … This decision will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly and prejudicially erroneous. (People v. Wade (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 721 , 366 N.E.2d 528 ; People v. Oberlander (1969), 109 Ill.

People v. Webber

2014 IL App (2d) 130101 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 2014

The court added, however, that “ ‘[a] literal interpretation is not controlling where the spirit and intent of the General Assembly in enacting a statute are clearly expressed, its objects and purposes are clearly … The Secretary is not required to issue a license to everyone who applies; the Secretary shall issue a license “to every qualifying applicant.” (Emphasis added.) 625 ILCS 5/6-110(a) (West 2012).

SMEILIS v. Lipkis

359 Ill. Dec. 862 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 23, 2012

A party seeking to establish judicial estoppel must prove each requirement by clear and convincing evidence. Boelkes v. … In fact, absent an expert witness qualified *901 to give standard of care testimony, the malpractice suit is subject to dismissal. See McWilliams v.

Hunter Corp. v. Industrial Commission

206 Ill. Dec. 254 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1994

Upon requesting a worker, the contractor is assigned the next qualified person on the referral list. … demonstrates that the union’s role was limited to making referrals of qualified applicants.

Garton v. Pfeifer

2019 IL App (1st) 180872 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2019

Here, the initial and reissued subpoenas clearly directed NorthShore to deliver the subpoenaed records to the circuit court. … We have said: ‘The statute clearly indicates the legislature intended to modify absolute common law witness immunity in order to provide a remedy of damages against persons who violate the

Yates v. Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc.

230 Ill. App. 3d 472 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1992

Defendant suggests that Caskey was not qualified to comment on the adequacy of the screen. The Cubs also assert that plaintiff repeatedly failed to establish a foundation for Caskey’s opinions. … Based on this record, the trial court could determine that Caskey was qualified to testify as an expert in this case.

Illinois Industrial Home for the Blind v. Dreyer

150 Ill. App. 574 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 25, 1909

Demarest, 7 Gray, 1 , the statute, after directing that the clerk and treasurer should be chosen annually, added that they should hold their offices until others should be chosen and qualified in their stead. … The office of treasurer of the plaintiff is clearly an office, not an employment. The property of the plaintiff is held in trust as the property of the state.

Crittenden v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n

2017 IL App (1st) 160002WC · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 2017

Suitable employment is employment in which the claimant is both able and qualified to perform. … As such, he was not qualified for the occupation of school bus driver.

North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Fitzgibbons

79 Ill. App. 632 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 1899

The only objection urged to this instruction is, that it omits the word credible as qualifying the corroborating evidence. … The application of the knowledge, observation and experience of the jury is clearly limited to the facts and circumstances in proof.

Hinsdale Golf Club v. Kochanski

197 Ill. App. 3d 634 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 1990

Further, the Board’s argument that the phrase “offering exhibitions to the public” qualifies the listed examples in section 3.25 is without merit. … We read the same phrase as only qualifying certain organized sporting events.

Roche v. County of Lake

205 Ill. App. 3d 102 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 6, 1990

This is a procedure clearly stated under the Sheriff’s Merit System Act (Sheriff’s Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 125, par. 160). … Clearly, process servers, warrant officers and bailiffs do not occupy typical law enforcement positions.

People v. Rodriguez

249 N.E.3d 564 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2024

The defense argued that, if the ongoing investigation established probable cause to bring murder charges, pretrial detention could be reconsidered, but the current charges did not support such detention. … The defendant here was clearly charged with a qualifying offense under section 110-6.1(a)(6)(O)(ii) of the Code, and we reject his argument that the first time weapon offense program changed the nonprobationable nature

In Re Marriage of Morreale

351 Ill. App. 3d 238 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2004

In such event, any balance due and owing will be paid into a trust to be established by MARY ELLEN for the benefit of the parties’ children. … Mary Ellen argues that the agreement clearly shows that the payments are a property settlement and, therefore, are not income for tax purposes.

In Re Marriage of Hillinger

146 Ill. App. 3d 549 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 1986

B Clearly, the question becomes one of determining when exactly the final order was entered in this case. … Clearly, Gwendolyn’s motion does not specify any of the first four forms of relief enumerated in the statute.

Lipman v. Board of Review

123 Ill. App. 3d 176 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 1984

We believe that the Board’s interpretation of Regulation 17F is clearly erroneous. … Even apart from the fact that virtually no one could qualify under the Board’s interpretation since, as counsel for the Board admitted at oral argument, most people are aware of the Act, the Board’s interpretation is too

People v. Atul R.

382 Ill. App. 3d 1164 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 2008

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent clearly established the criteria necessary to satisfy the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine. … In the absence of any restrictive language in the statute, we believe respondent’s criminal defense attorney qualifies as a party to whom notice is due.

People v. Hardt

329 Ill. App. 153 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 29, 1946

Even a possession unlawful as against the person claiming title, but lawful as against the burglar, will suffice. ’ ’ ’ It is well to call attention to certain established rules relative to the construction of indictments … The offense charged in count 2 of the indictment in the instant case was clearly defined and described.

Barton v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.

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. (footnote: 14) Defendants cite Jones v.

Carter v. Azaran

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.