Case law

Ferentchak v. Village of Frankfort

121 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 26, 1984

The fact that the municipality was insured, thereby waiving defenses granted it by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … However, we need not determine the extent of liability or whether the voluntary nature of the work had any effect upon liability, for the evidence clearly establishes that the work had no effect upon the problem.

Arellano v. The Department of Human Services

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 2010

standard or whether as applied to the facts the rule of law is violated--will not be overturned on review unless clearly erroneous. … It specifically provided a definition of the term without the qualifier the regulations added.

Thompson v. Gordon

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 2005

However, we note that West was a criminal case brought by the State, and as such, liberty interests of the defendant were clearly at stake. … App. 3d at 188 ) the State should have engaged the services of an independent and unbiased Illinois fire investigator, perhaps even licensed, rather than a fire investigator who was so clearly intertwined in conflicts of

Meyerson v. Carter

22 Ill. App. 3d 73 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 1974

This principle is clearly set out in Mayhew v. … Nor does tire fact that a statute has been construed and applied during a long period of time necessarily make it valid and immune from attack.” (360 Ill. at 139.) See also Berk v.

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.

Lauer v. Blustein

1 Ill. App. 3d 519 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 1971

The agreement in the instant case was unambiguous and was clearly not intended to be restricted to a guaranty executed by plaintiff on November 4, 1964. … of the plaintiff in his declaration or complaint to allege facts sufficient to make out a prima facie cause of action. * * * In order to show a breach of duty by the defendant, it must then be alleged that all conditions qualifying

People v. Oliver

306 Ill. App. 3d 59 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 1999

V The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in qualifying Dr. … He has reported results in over 1,000 cases and has been qualified as an expert in over 200 trials or hearings.

Reynolds v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC

988 N.E.2d 984 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 2, 2013

Smith, 231 Ill. 2d at 121, 896 N.E.2d at 238 (tort immunity); Jackson v. Randle, 2011 IL App (4th) 100790, ¶ 12, 957 N.E.2d 572 (standing); see also 4 Richard A. … their affirmative defense of immunity).

Shempf v. Chaviano

430 Ill. Dec. 415 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 2019

Even a statute requiring a “governmental entity” to pay postjudgment interest was not deemed a waiver of sovereign immunity; even though the State obviously qualifies as a “governmental entity,” the State was not expressly … The former is barred by sovereign immunity; the latter is not. ¶ 62 So any claim for “damages” against the Department is barred by sovereign immunity.

Valfer v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare

31 N.E.3d 883 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2015

Although summary judgment is appropriate if a plaintiff cannot establish an element of his claim, it should only be granted when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. Dardeen v. … Here, section 10.2 of the Act clearly defines "willful and wanton" in a manner that differs from the standard definition. As such, we find Dr.

In Re Estate of Ketter

63 Ill. App. 3d 796 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1978

The proponent may also introduce any other evidence competent to establish a will. … The record clearly shows that ample cross-examination was allowed.

People v. Huddleston

176 Ill. App. 3d 18 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 19, 1988

The trial court ruled that Officer Smith did not qualify as an expert and could not testify regarding the results of the test. … Clearly, defendant could not invoke the right of self-defense to justify such actions. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. City of Waukegan

2017 IL App (2d) 160381 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2017

Specifically, we said: “Applying the cause theory as set forth in Nicor to the present case clearly establishes that this case presented a single cause and therefore a single occurrence. … The issue in Steidl was whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct.

Everett v. City of Belleville

2024 IL App (5th) 231069-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2024

To establish a violation, a plaintiff must show that “he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise subjected to … His vague reference to a mental illness does not establish that he had a qualifying disability. Nor does he allege that he specifically requested an accommodation.

Equity Associates, Inc. v. Village of Northbrook

171 Ill. App. 3d 115 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 25, 1988

The court then stated: “Clearly as a result of the *** injunctions the plaintiff was prevented from using the insurance proceeds for a period of more than nine years.” (Lyons, 78 Ill. 2d at 240 .) … In the language of the Act, defendants did not subject plaintiffs to the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities” secured by the Federal Constitution and laws and thus are not liable under the Civil Rights Act

Forest Preserve District of Du\Page County v. Department of Revenue

266 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 1994

It is well established that statutes granting tax exemptions on property must be strictly construed in favor of taxation (Christian Action Ministry v. … Department of Local Governmental Affairs (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 51, 62 ) and the party claiming an exemption has the burden to prove clearly and conclusively that it is entitled to exemption (Telco Leasing, Inc. v.

Hayes v. Adams

987 N.E.2d 402 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2013

Thus, the court found that the defendant, by her presence at the time of the injury in conjunction with her legal ownership, “clearly established that she maintained care, custody, and control of her horse to … In addressing whether the city was immune from suit, the reviewing court stated that the plain language of the Act made the owner strictly liable. Id. at 560.

Mtengule v. City of Chicago

257 Ill. App. 3d 323 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 1993

Section 3 — 102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act speaks to when a public entity owes a duty and provides: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has … Here, the trial court clearly abused its discretion by excluding relevant testimony. Additionally, the exclusion of Dr. Hawkins’ testimony materially affected the outcome of the case.

Novey v. Kishwaukee Community Health Services Center

176 Ill. App. 3d 674 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 30, 1988

Once the requirement of a license to practice in the school of medicine to which the witness seeks to testify is satisfied, it lies within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine if the witness is qualified and … establishing familiarity with applicable standard of care).)