Case law

Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

214 Ill. App. 3d 729 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 1991

An Indiana statute immunizes a driver from negligence liability for the death of the driver’s parent passenger. (Ind. Code Ann. §9—3—3—1(b) (Burns 1987).) … In addition, there is no conflict between Indiana’s immunization of the son from liability to the father and Illinois’ requirement of coverage for injury to the father’s family.

People v. Continental Beneficial Ass'n

204 Ill. App. 501 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 1917

the only mention of a receiver is made in a proviso to the section; that under an elementary rule of construction, the function of a proviso is not to enlarge the authority granted in the body of the section, but is to qualify … And, the jurisdiction once established to enjoin private wrong, in each case, at the suit of the person wronged, it is almost a logical necessity to admit the other branch of the jurisdiction, to.enjoin, at the suit of the

Grobman v. City of Des Plaines

14 Ill. App. 3d 996 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 10, 1973

The zoning ordinance of the City of Des Plaines requires a lot zoned R-2, Single Family Residence, to have a frontage of 55 feet and an area of 6875 square feet to qualify for a building permit. … will interfere with the discretion of the legislative body, such a party attempting to challenge a zoning code must necessarily overcome the presumption of validity by presenting evidence to show such classification is clearly

Morris Ex Rel. Morris v. Williams

359 Ill. App. 3d 383 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 23, 2005

That ATV use was foreseeable does not establish willful and wanton conduct on Wilson’s part. … The soybeans standing in and around the hole were clearly visible because the remainder of the field was harvested.

Dobias v. Oak Park

2016 IL App (1st) 152205 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 2016

¶ 109 The complaint sufficiently alleges an abuse of any qualified privilege that may have existed. … But defendants did not raise, brief, or argue the affirmative defense of immunity under the Tort Immunity Act in the trial court. The trial court, therefore, did not enter any order on this issue or even address it.

Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

134 Ill. App. 3d 71 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 1985

Case law has clearly established that a denial of a motion to stay is appealable as of right under Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1). (Metropolitan Sanitary District v. United States Steel Corp. (1975), 30 Ill. … Since the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to hear these cases, an alternative ground for reversal must be found if the trial court’s ruling on the motion to stay is to be overturned.

Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc.

374 Ill. App. 3d 549 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2007

Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(5) very clearly, and without qualification, excludes the use of a deceased party’s discovery deposition. … The policy in Illinois, as established by the Illinois Supreme Court, specifically disallows the interpretation advanced by Jean Longstreet.

People v. Gaytan

992 N.E.2d 17 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 21, 2013

The appellate court rejected the defendant’s claims and found the documents sought were “immaterial” and noted “[t]he alleged traffic violations in these cases, if established at the appropriate hearing, … The California statute did not include qualifying language about the types of materials obstructing the plate or plate covers. ¶ 30 In Parks, 2011 WY 19, ¶ 3, 247 P.3d 857, the police officer could not

Gillespie v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

3 Ill. App. 3d 779 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 1972

He testified that the maximum speed the train could travel as established by the railroad company was 78 miles per hour and as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission was 79 miles per hour. … Hence, there could be no reversible error even had he qualified as a witness properly able to be called under Section 60. (See 35 ALR.2d 759 in discussing Federal Rule 43(b) after which Section 60 was modeled.)

People v. McLaren

77 Ill. App. 3d 368 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 12, 1979

When he invoked the fifth amendment with respect to several other questions, defense counsel asked that the State give the witness immunity, but the assistant State’s Attorney refused this request. … App. 2d 369 , 260 N.E.2d 451 , is clearly misplaced.

Poeple v. Treadwell

2022 IL App (1st) 191905 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 2022

Having failed to establish prejudice, the court believes that the [defendant] has failed in his attempt to establish this claim also.” … Slaughter, whose representation he clearly did not want. Further, Mr.

People v. Illinois Commerce Commission

2011 IL App (1st) 100654 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2011

Although the Commission accepted Hoover’s testimony that the plans were designed to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees, the Commission determined such reasoning did not demonstrate a … The court held such action clearly conflicted with fundamental principals of ratemaking in Illinois. Id. at 207.

Wodziak v. Kash

278 Ill. App. 3d 901 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 22, 1996

to establish that Dr. … McMahan’s expert witness was "clearly” based on a false assumption because it was incompatible with the testimony of another expert.

Estate of Jezewski v. Jaworski

2019 IL App (1st) 170100 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 2020

A lack of standing qualifies as an “affirmative matter” under section 2-619(a)(9). Id. … It is well established that in construing a deed the overriding concern is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill. 2d 458, 467 (1991).

Philip Henrici Co. v. Alexander

198 Ill. App. 568 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 12, 1916

The complainant contends that the court should have entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill; that the evidence clearly established that the defendants were guilty of a conspiracy to injure the business … In the case at bar, we are clearly of the opinion that there was no strike as a matter of fact.

100 Lake v. Novak

971 N.E.2d 1195 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2012

-7-  Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. … Immunity Act, which would otherwise bar the plaintiff’s action.

Slay v. Allstate Corp.

2018 IL App (1st) 180133 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2019

Thus, Allstate argues that dismissal under section 2-619 was warranted, as the affidavit and exhibits thereto establish that Allstate complied with the EA Agreement. ¶ 27 Mary’s reply argues that Allstate … These allegations support a reasonable inference that, since Buddy was previously found to be qualified to sell Allstate policies, he would be qualified to manage Mary’s book of business.

Decker v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

268 Ill. App. 3d 521 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1994

These facts clearly demonstrate that defendant undertook to do more than just provide a time-delay safe to its franchisees. … Ill Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, because plaintiff failed to establish that the expert was qualified to render his opinion.

People v. Gary

49 Ill. App. 3d 704 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 1977

established by the evidence. … The obvious objective of defendant’s counsel in the argument in the instant case was to appeal to the jury for mercy, since the evidence clearly established that defendant used a gun in obtaining the *55 from Foreman.

People v. Botruff

331 Ill. App. 3d 486 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 6, 2002

Such hearings clearly qualify as “any hearing conduced under [the] Act” and thus invoke rights contained in section 25. We also note that subsection 25(e) itself contravenes the State’s asserted limitation. … In Mathews, the United States Supreme Court established three factors to consider when identifying the dictates of due process in a given case.