Case law

Johnson v. ADM/Growmark River Systems, Inc.

295 Ill. App. 3d 436 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 3, 1998

Plaintiff argued that the barges were clearly vessels and that they were in navigation because they were floating on a navigable waterway. … Clearly, the work barges in the case at bar are not analogous to the dredge, which sometimes cruised, or a transoceanic liner, which also cruises.

Zeitz v. Village of Glenview

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 5, 1999

Our review of the record shows that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the R-E zoning classification was arbitrary and capricious … (footnote: 2) The trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the R-E zoning ordinance as applied to the property was arbitrary, unreasonable

Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. Thompson Coburn LLP

402 Ill. App. 3d 317 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 2010

The evidence at the trial established that a qualified corporate trustee was licensed under a regulatory body as a corporation to be engaged in the offering of trust services to the public. … “Rather, to establish her injury, the plaintiff must establish that she incurred additional attorney fees.” Nettleton, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 755 .

Chappell v. Board of Trustees of Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund

445 Ill. Dec. 204 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 31, 2020

¶ 41 IMRF clearly has the power under Illinois law to suspend benefit payments and retain amounts paid to an annuitant in error. … Clearly, plaintiff’s reliance on the acts undertaken by the Township and IMRF was not reasonable. Equitable relief is not warranted here. See Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corp., 398 Ill.

Conti v. Health Care Service Corp.

378 Ill. App. 3d 202 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 26, 2007

In her deposition, Patricia testified that “something was wrong” with her; however, she testified that she did not think her condition qualified as an illness. … App. 3d 1023, 1032 , 498 N.E.2d 302, 309 (1986), that an insurer’s employee or underwriter may testify to establish the materiality of a misrepresentation.

Saia v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.

366 Ill. App. 3d 419 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 2006

ANALYSIS Tokai argues first that we should ignore all discovery and affirm because the complaint does not state sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. … . *** Any inconvenience to defendant in defending this lawsuit is clearly outweighed by Kansas’ interest in protecting its citizens from injury.

Hyams v. Evanston Hospital

225 Ill. App. 3d 253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 3, 1992

For these reasons, the appellate court ruled the proponent had “not articulated the threshold facts necessary to qualify [the] statement as an attorney-client communication.” Claxton, 201 Ill. App. 3d at 237 . … The record clearly establishes that Schumacher’s conduct was not contemptuous.

Formento v. Joyce

168 Ill. App. 3d 429 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1988

This undisputed evidence clearly establishes, as a matter of law, that there was no attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs in this case and the various defendants. … A class action is not, however, a mandatory course of action in every case that might otherwise qualify as a class action.

People v. Spera

303 Ill. App. 3d 834 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1999

The supreme court concluded, “A defendant guilty of a single offense cannot fulfill the criteria necessitating prison time, yet simultaneously qualify for probation under the Code. … We believe that the court clearly established that, where there is only one conviction, a sentence of probation cannot be imposed together with a sentence of imprisonment in the DOC because these dispositions amount to two

Taylor v. Evangelical Covenant Church

461 Ill. Dec. 151 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 12, 2022

Dismissal is only appropriate if it is “clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” Rehfield v. … ¶ 24 This opinion does not give any support or credence to the position that church investigative bodies are immune from the mandatory reporting statutes or that their procedures and findings are exempt from disclosure

Bohn v. Stubblefield

238 Ill. App. 453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1925

It has not seen fit to take it from the electorate or qualify it in any degree and we must apply the law as given. … The legislative purpose clearly expressed is that in its corporate capacity the district may determine whether it shall or shall not have such property.

English v. People

90 Ill. App. 54 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 12, 1900

The receiver was appointed on tl e same day the bill was filed, and he qualified by filing his bond on the day thereafter. … We are clearly of opinion that no such emergency is-shown as to justify the appointment of a- receiver without notice.

Trans-Air Corp. v. Department of Revenue

86 Ill. App. 3d 750 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 1980

Therefore, the Department failed to show that the sales in question qualified as transactions "subject to the use tax. … The State has not established that fact in this case. In Boye Needle Co. v.

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Adams County

179 Ill. App. 3d 752 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 16, 1989

Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2—701), requesting the court to establish the rights and legal relations of the parties under certain insurance policies issued to the County from May 1978 through May 1983. … arrest, erroneous service of civil papers, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, libel, slander, defamation of character, violation of property rights, or deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities

People v. Wheeler

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 27, 2002

The State also granted him immunity from any murder charges stemming from Love’s death. The parties stipulated that Karen Washington would offer the following testimony if called as a witness. … Smith’s testimony made that fact more probable and thus qualifies as relevant. For these reasons, we cannot conclude that the judge abused his discretion in admitting Smith’s testimony as relevant.

Cole v. Yanoff

2025 IL App (1st) 241017-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 2025

A complaint should not be dismissed under section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. … ¶ 20 In practice, the privilege provides an attorney with complete immunity with respect to the communications he makes related to litigation, regardless of the attorney’s motives and irrespective of the attorney’s

People v. J.T. Einoder, Inc.

2013 IL App (1st) 113498 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 30, 2014

Manifest error is that which is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable. People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004). … The amendment to the Tort Immunity Act also validated levies adopted “either before, on or after the effective date of [the Act].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

People v. Smith

63 Ill. App. 2d 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 1965

If A’s testimony is offered for the purpose of establishing that B said this, it is clearly admissible—if offered to prove that event X occurred, it is clearly inadmissible, for the only probative value rests in B’s knowledge—and … The admission of the defendant of the prior inconsistent statement was not sufficiently qualified to permit- or require rebuttal.

Busby v. First National Bank

288 Ill. App. 500 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 9, 1937

As part of its organization the executor bank had established two investment committees, senior and junior. … It clearly appears from his own testimony that he did not.

Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Cutter

140 Ill. App. 324 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 1908

This evidence clearly tends to show not only that there was no attempt on plaintiffs’ part to suppress the value of the merchandise in order to secure a lower rate, but that plaintiffs’ shipping agent did not even know that … that liability which the law annexes to its employment, defendant cannot avail of it, and that which counsel maintain as a conclusion of the law is nothing more than the effect to be produced by the testimony offered to establish