Case law

Salvi v. The Village of Lake Zurich

66 N.E.3d 894 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2016

Counts I, II, and III all allege trespass (willful and wanton in count I, negligent in counts II and III), which is clearly a tort applicable to private parties. … At the very least, plaintiff, who has the burden on this issue, has not established that the inference is unreasonable.

People v. Reed

2019 IL App (4th) 170090 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2019

As such, the court does not find the petitioner has established a colorable claim of actual innocence.” ¶ 14 This appeal followed. ¶ 15 II. … Kane, 2013 IL App (2d) 110594, ¶ 27 (“The use of invited error as a basis for postconviction relief is clearly frivolous and patently without merit.”).

Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

2014 IL App (1st) 130285 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 2, 2014

Consequently, under the CBA, the grievances are arbitrable. ¶ 56 The Board, however, argues that the Union’s grievances are inarbitrable because the Board reserved a managerial right to establish performance … It clearly can ***.”).

Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Property Ass'n

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 1999

The court found that a violation of that statute was not clearly established and that the alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. … Thus, the immunity afforded by the Act does not apply.

People v. Wasson

211 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 4, 1991

In the present case, the trial court clearly acted within its discretion in allowing Cooly’s testimony. … Defendant further argues Cooly never testified post-traumatic stress syndrome is recognized and accepted in child sexual abuse cases, and the State thus failed to establish it as being admissible under section 115—7.2.

DOD Technologies v. Mesierow Insurance Services, Inc.

381 Ill. App. 3d 1042 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 14, 2008

Therefore, we conclude that section 10b(1) did not immunize defendant. We affirm the dismissal of the consumer fraud count. 4. … Haas, 226 Ill. 2d 334 (2007), the court concluded, “This amendment clearly reinforced our statement in Bright that requests for admission are part of the discovery process, and *** [w]e hold, as we did in Bright, that

Fuqua v. SVOX AG

2020 IL App (1st) 191275-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2020

Soseman filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him based on his qualified immunity as an attorney for SVOX, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)). … Soseman because we concluded that he had qualified immunity. Id. ¶ 41. We remanded the case back to the trial court with directions for the trial court to compel arbitration between Mr. Fuqua and SVOX. Id. ¶ 42. Mr.

People Ex Rel. Highsmith v. County of Jefferson

87 Ill. App. 2d 145 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 2, 1967

District Court was unenforceable because on the date on which plaintiff’s claim arose, December 24, 1958, the county had governmental immunity, that date being previous to the abolishment of the doctrine of governmental immunity … The situation in both Chicago Board of Education cases is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand.

People v. Thompson

327 Ill. App. 3d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 8, 2002

The trial court found that Hackerson was qualified to testify and therefore denied the motion. The court also admitted, over a defense objection, the diagram of the development. … Under section 115 — 10.5, Hackerson clearly would be a “qualified individual.” Section 115 — 10.5 is essentially a codification of the principle recognized in Morgan.

Halleck v. Coastal Building Maintenance Co.

207 Ill. Dec. 387 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 13, 1995

Accordingly, I believe the majority should have clearly disavowed Waechter’s allegiance to the "old” rule. … I submit that the only legitimate theory of admissibility in this case is that Smith’s statement qualified as an admission by a party opponent, i.e., Coastal, because Smith spoke as Coastal’s agent.

Department of Corrections v. Adams

146 Ill. App. 3d 173 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 1986

Here the circuit court clearly erred by focusing on the findings and decision of the administrative law judge rather than the Commission. … In this case, that Adams established a prima facie case, and that Corrections articulated an allegedly nondiscriminatory reason for its decision is undisputed.

Monson v. The City of Danville

80 N.E.3d 87 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 2017

The college responded that its building and grounds director’s handling of the height deviation clearly involved policy and discretion, which afforded the college immunity under section 2-201 of the Act. Id. ¶ 39. … ” ¶ 34 Monson further claims that Ahrens’ testimony established that the City had actual notice of the dangerous condition, which would have negated any immunity afforded under section 3-102 of the Act.

Emergency Treatment, S.C. v. Department of Employment Security

334 Ill. Dec. 538 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2009

Nunes finally concluded that plaintiff also failed to establish that the individuals were engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. … Our analysis starts with a presumption that the statute is constitutional and the burden rests on the party challenging the statute to clearly establish that it is unconstitutional. Morgan, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 292 .

People v. Accardi

58 Ill. App. 2d 364 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1965

The constitutional guarantees against search and seizure are not against all searches and seizures but only against those that are unreasonable and do not extend immunity from search upon lawful arrest. People v. … No other witnesses were called, and we cannot say that the court’s judgment, in denying the motion to suppress, rested on doubtful, improbable or unsatisfactory evidence, or clearly insufficient evidence.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Krigos

196 Ill. App. 3d 200 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 1990

Krigos’ policy clearly and unambiguously excluded coverage for negligent entrustment. … Krigos’ policy clearly and unambiguously excluded negligent entrustment, and the trial court properly denied coverage.

Flynn v. Edmonds

236 Ill. App. 3d 770 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 29, 1992

Qualifying exams, it is argued, are not public information. … Northern Trust establishes a two-part test to determine the admissibility of expert testimony offered to establish the standard of care.

Deizman v. BD. OF ED., DIST. 201, COOK CTY.

53 Ill. App. 3d 1050 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 21, 1977

Lastly, implicit in section 24—6 is the fact that illness alone will not suffice to qualify a teacher for sick leave; that illness must prevent him from performing his teaching duties. … The sick leave provisions in the instant collective bargaining agreement clearly fall within the School Code provision.

Chicago, Wilmington & Vermillion Coal Co. v. People

114 Ill. App. 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1904

The court said : “ The first count, under the ruling in this state, whatever may be decided elsewhere, is clearly good. … It cannot be supposed that by such repeal the lawmaking power intended to extend perfect immunity thereafter to those who should commit that crime. State v. Bollins, 8 FT. H. 550; State v. F. F. Company, 49 FT. H. 240.

Gruss v. Beverley

201 Ill. App. 3d 502 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 1990

The court clearly had authority under the provisions of section 2 — 1301(e) (Ill. Rev. … From October 26 until November 18 the defendants clearly had ample time following notice of default from the court clerk to move to vacate the default.

Kopchar v. City of Chicago

395 Ill. App. 3d 762 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 6, 2009

HPS moved to dismiss, alleging that because it performed a quasi-judicial function it was cloaked with absolute immunity from suit. … We note the use of the disjunctive “or,” which clearly does not limit the scope of the exemption to academic examinations.