Case law

Ware v. City of Chicago

873 N.E.2d 944 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 1, 2007

violations or deviations from ordinary and customary construction practices; c. supervise inspectors to ensure identification of Building Code violations or deviation from ordinary and customary construction practices; d. employ qualified … It is well established that the Tort Immunity Act does not impose new duties on a public entity; rather, it merely confers immunities and defenses.

Holda v. County of Kane

88 Ill. App. 3d 522 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1980

Stat. 1975, ch. 85, par. 9—103(b)), to waive “ * * * its immunity from suit by reason of the defenses and immunities provided in this Act.” … Arnolt is clearly controlling here; the indemnity provision for the sheriff as stated in the counties act neither creates liability nor provides immunity from suit in any civil action.

CGE Ford Heights, L.L.C. v. Miller

306 Ill. App. 3d 431 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 1999

Plaintiffs, which burn tires, no longer qualify as QSWEFs under the amendment and are not entitled to the retail rate. … We will not render advisory opinions or decide cases merely to establish precedent. Berlin, 179 Ill. 2d at 8 .

Nieder v. Gacy

121 Ill. App. 3d 854 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 1, 1984

Plaintiff contends, however, that these immunity provisions must be read in conjunction with section 2 — 202 of the act which she argues limits the extent of the immunity granted in the police immunity provisions. … The decedent’s death clearly is too remote a consequence of the parole board’s actions to conclude that the board’s actions fall within this jurisdictional base. (Cf. Martinez v. California (1979), 444 U.S. 277 , 62 L.

Phelps v. Chicago Transit Authority

224 Ill. App. 3d 229 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 19, 1991

The facts concerning the jury instruction on the CTA’s duty of care and the CTA’s claim of immunity will be detailed later in connection with our discussion of those issues. … A reviewing court will not reverse a cause on the basis of an improper jury instruction unless it is able to conclude that the instruction clearly misled the jury. (Nicholl v. Scaletta (1982), 104 Ill.

Pattullo-Banks v. City of Park Ridge

2014 IL App (1st) 132856 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2014

. ¶ 15 It is well established that the Tort Immunity Act does not create duties; “[r]ather, the Act merely codifies those duties existing at common law, to which the subsequently delineated immunities … The court in Kiel still clearly recognized the duty of a city to clear unnatural accumulations of ice and snow from its sidewalks.

Straub v. City of Mt. Olive

240 Ill. App. 3d 967 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 28, 1993

Vogt, as a member of the City’s park board, qualifies as an employee protected by the Act. … Neilson and Miller qualify for immunity from a negligence cause of action because they too were acting as volunteers on behalf of the City.

Johnson v. Bishof

2015 IL App (1st) 131122 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 2015

“Unless the physician’s negligence is so grossly apparent or the treatment so common as to be within the everyday knowledge of a layperson, expert medical testimony is required to establish the standard of care … Immunity Act.

Barrett v. Fonorow

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2003

News vendors, bookstores, and libraries generally qualify for this standard of liability." J. Friedman & F. … Clearly, he has not.

Griffin v. Willoughby

369 Ill. App. 3d 405 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2006

Plaintiffs position is clearly based on Currie v. … Paszkowski clearly establishes that section 8 — 101 of the Tort Immunity Act applies to plaintiffs action. Accordingly, plaintiffs action was time barred and the trial court properly dismissed it on that basis. B.

Sandholm v. Kuecker

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 2010

Acts or statements made during legislative, judicial, or quasi-judicial proceedings are already protected by absolute or qualified privileges, including the protection of the right to petition the government as established … Pennington upheld the same antitrust immunity doctrine where coal companies and unions persuaded the Labor Department to establish minimum wages for employees of contractors, which frustrated the non-unionized companies

Cohen v. Chicago Park District

2016 IL App (1st) 152889 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 2017

The court also stated the statute’s “requirement of ‘primitiveness’ clearly [did] not apply to the nature of access roads but, rather, to any camping areas thereby provided access.” Id. … Further, we note, the legislature clearly limited immunity under section 3-107(a) to access roads to “primitive” camping areas as opposed to all camping areas.

Bowes v. Alvarez

253 N.E.3d 462 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 2024

¶ 27 The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is well-established in the common law of the United States. In Imbler v. … In his reply brief, he also argues that defendants were clearly acting as advocates for themselves, as opposed to the State.

Thurman v. Champaign Park District

2011 IL App (4th) 101024 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 10, 2011

Fourth District Docket No. 4-10-1024 Argued July 13, 2011 Filed August 10, 2011 Held The Tort Immunity Act immunized defendant … of public entities in Tort Immunity cases to the exclusion of common[-]law definitions.”

Estate of Herington v. County of Woodford

250 Ill. App. 3d 870 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 1993

Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … If plaintiffs established the culverts were an improvement to real property, section 13 — 214(a) of the Code would apply; if not, section 8 — 101 of the Tort Immunity Act would apply. Zimmer, 242 Ill.

Greeson v. MacKinaw Township

207 Ill. App. 3d 193 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 1990

Clearly this function is discretionary. … It is a well established principle of the common law that an immunity exists in favor of public officials when they are exercising their official discretion on matters which are discretionary in nature and not ministerial

Carter v. Du Page County Sheriff

304 Ill. App. 3d 443 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1999

Plaintiff contends that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply because (1) the standard of care established in sections 11—205 and 11—907 of the IIlinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11—205, 11—907 (West 1996)) supercedes … This argument is clearly erroneous for two reasons. First, and most disturbingly, the language counsel relies upon and quotes at length comes, not from the court’s opinion, but from a special concurring opinion.

Barr v. Cutler

64 Ill. App. 3d 518 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1978

The failure on the part of the lessor to qualify the word “fire” indicates an intent on his part. Additionally, damage due to “other inevitable accidents” remains unspecified, while fire is specifically mentioned. … In addition, society’s interests are met in part by the establishment of definite rules which enable individuals and businesses to allocate the risks of foreseeable losses.

Glover v. Board of Education

21 Ill. App. 3d 1053 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 5, 1974

In Reynolds the plaintiff served notice on the defendant city by registered mail with return receipt requested when the Local Government Tort Immunity Act required personal service. … The school board’s dismissal of plaintiff is then clearly not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Taft v. Otte & Co.

274 Ill. App. 280 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 1934

App. 428 ,” but the opinion contains the further statement that “it seems to be conceded that the stock was not qualified and was Class ‘C.’ ” In Jochum v. … Brady, supra, p. 430 ), this interpretation, in our judgment, is clearly wrong. In Oppenheimer v. Peabody, Houghteling & Co., supra, Mr.