Case law

In re Robert S.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2003

However, it is well established that when a party acquiesces in proceeding in a certain manner, he cannot later complain prejudice on appeal. Hill v. … Respondent argues, however, that allowing a "designee" to administer the medications runs contrary to established case law. See In re Jennifer H. , 333 Ill.

People v. Island

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 2008

On cross-examination, Harris testified that he was granted immunity for his testimony at trial. … He agreed that he refused to testify in this case and that he was offered immunity by the State for his testimony. He also agreed that he again refused to testify even after he was offered immunity.

Watson v. Electoral Board of the Village of Bradley

990 N.E.2d 401 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 2013

Section 3.1-10-5(a) states, “A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year … It was the objector’s burden to establish that Watson did not meet residency requirements. The objector clearly did not carry this burden, which leads us to Watson’s next challenge.

People v. Villareal

448 Ill. Dec. 807 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 2021

¶ 12 “All statutes are presumed to be constitutional” and “[t]he party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of rebutting this presumption and clearly establishing a constitutional … In addition, proof that the group qualifies as a street gang does not entail proof connecting the possession of the firearm to any of the criminal acts that qualify the group for street gang status.

Wells v. Board of Trustees of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund

361 Ill. App. 3d 716 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2005

This consideration is irrelevant, as the cases cited above clearly establish that the relationship between offense and employment is causal rather than temporal. … An employee who changes positions on a fairly regular basis would effectively immunize from the statute much of his or her pension.

People v. Brown

2020 IL App (1st) 190828 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 2020

Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128, 135 (1984) (holding that “[t]he testimony of Molstad’s codefendants clearly qualifies as newly discovered evidence” because no amount of diligence could have compelled them to incriminate … Neither Elzy’s testimony nor Green’s testimony qualifies as new.

People v. Coleman

347 Ill. App. 3d 266 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 5, 2004

Clearly, after Swift, this enhanced sentence violates the principles of Apprendi. … , strangulation, stabbing and burning to prevent her from leaving the state and obtaining a divorce undoubtedly qualifies as brutal and heinous behavior on defendant’s part.

Schiller v. HomeServices of Illinois, LLC

241 N.E.3d 538 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 9, 2024

By not awarding damages in the amount requested by the Schillers, the jury’s award is clearly inconsistent with its finding that K&S breached the contract. … ¶ 46 Here the damages award is clearly inconsistent with the jury’s verdict, and the circuit court did not err in granting the Schillers’ motion for additur.

People v. Hawkins

88 Ill. App. 3d 178 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 27, 1980

It is well established that the determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert and whether testimony proffered is expertise in nature rests with the trial judge. (People v. … This discretion will not be disturbed unless clearly and prejudicially erroneous. People v. Aliwoli (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 1014 , 356 N.E.2d 891 .

Margolies v. Landy & Rothbaum

136 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1985

In his remarks the judge stated “Plaintiff’s exhibit 10 (General Standards, ET Section 201 (Rule 201)) which is the standard, clearly put an accountant where an accountant belongs, that is a very high level of professional … Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1110) somehow established defendants’ liability.

Weiland v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.

302 Ill. App. 3d 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 1998

Justice Stevens further noted that preemption of all state common law causes of action would have the “perverse effect of granting complete immunity from design defect liability to an entire industry that, in the judgment … State requirements of “general applicability” are not preempted except where they have “the effect of establishing a substantive requirement for a specific device.” 21 C.F.R § 808.1(d)(6)(ii) (1995); Medtronic, Inc., 518

Wuerttemberger v. Continental Casualty Co.

32 Ill. App. 2d 430 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 1961

BURKE, J., dissenting: The rule is well established that where provisions of an insurance policy are inconsistent or ambiguous, they are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured. … The language in the policy clearly informs the insured of the benefits he can expect and defines the risk undertaken by the insurer.

United Stationers Supply Co. v. Zurich American Insurance

386 Ill. App. 3d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2008

Zurich responds that United Stationers did not establish that it qualified as an additional insured under the CGL policy. Zurich argues that there was no written contract requiring D.C. … The certificate of insurance clearly provided that it was not part of the policy and that the insured had to look to the policy to ascertain the extent of coverage.” Kraemer, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 811 .

Palmetto Leasing Co. v. Chiles

235 Ill. App. 3d 986 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 14, 1992

Thus, the record does not reflect a binding intention to pay $9,000 on defendants’ part and does not clearly establish a contract with definite terms. … The record does not clearly show that the parties intended that defendants be bound.

Ruiz v. The City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2006

Ligouri was qualified as an American Heart Association pediatric advanced life support provider. … 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.

Chicago Teachers Union v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Bd.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2003

The school board's argument that the IELRB was “wrong on the facts” ignores that the underlying premise of the “clearly erroneous” test is that there exists, to some degree, a “given set of facts” that are established or … Nonetheless, a review of the transcript of proceedings before the arbitrator clearly establishes that, during those proceedings , when the Union's attorney recognized the list was missing a page, the attorney properly withdrew

Heiden v. DNA Diagnostics Center

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 2009

of a cause of action also must qualify as a postjudgment motion. … Moreover, the"reconsideration" sought was not clearly identical to the "clarification" sought. Rather, the "reconsideration" and "clarification" were pleaded alternatively in the prayer for relief.

Dundee Township v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 2001

Under the Township Code, a township may acquire qualifying tracts of land for open space purposes. 60 ILCS 1/115--5 et seq. (West 1998). … The Township is seeking the benefits of the tax-exempt status of the fee and objecting to the tax burden clearly imposed on non-tax-exempt leaseholds. We are not persuaded by the Township's arguments.

Pope v. Alberto-Culver Co.

296 Ill. App. 3d 512 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 1998

It is well established that a product or service that is within the realm of general skills and knowledge in the industry cannot be a trade secret. Web Communications Group, Inc. v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 889 F. … Defendant company clearly had the knowledge, personnel and resources to identify the “niche market” referred to by plaintiff.

People v. Wiggins

2016 IL App (1st) 153163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 9, 2017

Section 1 of the FOID Card Act states that its intended purpose is to “establish[ ] a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons … would qualify him as being “licensed” in Texas to possess a firearm under section 2(b)(10) of the FOID Card Act.