Case law

In re Marriage of Morreale

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2004

In such event, any balance due and owing will be paid into a trust to be established by MARY ELLEN for the benefit of the parties' children. … Mary Ellen argues that the agreement clearly shows that the payments are a property settlement and, therefore, are not income for tax purposes.

People v. Hoffmann

140 Ill. App. 3d 1056 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 1986

The plain language of section 5 — 2—4(f) in no way limits the type of witness qualified to testify at a discharge hearing. … Tuteur, as well as the majority of the evidence, clearly and convincingly support the court’s denial of defendant’s petition for discharge and conditional release.

People v. Davis

208 Ill. App. 3d 33 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 1, 1991

The People qualified the witness as an expert, and we see no error in recognizing this witness as an expert. In Wilson v. … In the case at bar, however, the witness was qualified to discuss the broad subject of sexual abuse. This is clearly not as scientifically clear or as specific as the test the Bryant witness was qualified to discuss.

People v. Sizemore

311 Ill. App. 3d 917 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2000

Sizemore appeals, arguing that he met his burden of proof, establishing his right to conditional discharge. He contends that the circuit court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. … Chapman was clearly considered, but that fact alone was not the basis for the circuit court’s ruling. In fact, the circuit court specifically informed Sizemore that, “Dr.

Goudanis v. Village of Hillside

2025 IL App (1st) 242300-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2025

Moreover, it found that the evidence that Smith decided to unilaterally repair some sidewalks even when homeowners decided not to participate “clearly shows that Smith’s engagement with the 50/50 program was not ministerial … ¶ 31 Here, by contrast, the record establishes that the Village was aware of the condition of the sidewalk in front of McDonald’s residence before Goudanis’s fall.

Lambert v. Village of Summit

104 Ill. App. 3d 1034 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 1982

In the case at bar, unlike Wilson and Bowman Dairy Co., the time requirement of the Wrongful Death Act was clearly met. … Clearly, plaintiff in this case did not delay in the bringing of this suit.

Jenkins v. Universities Civil Service Merit Board of the State Universities Civil Service System

106 Ill. App. 3d 215 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 4, 1982

However, the testimony establishes that plaintiff agreed that his suspension be held in abeyance pending reinvestigation of the incident. … Even assuming plaintiff was off duty at the time, a decision exonerating him of the misconduct alleged in charge (1) is not clearly required.

Mirabella v. Retirement Board

198 Ill. App. 3d 971 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 1990

responds that the legislature never intended that the Reciprocity Act should lead to such a result; that the purpose of the statute is to permit governmental employees to combine service for the express purpose of meeting the qualifying … These statutory provisions are relevant here because the use of the same words or phrases in different sections of a statute should be given a consistent meaning unless legislative intent to the contrary is clearly expressed

Matthews v. Aganad

394 Ill. App. 3d 591 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 4, 2009

That standard is met only when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or when the jury’s findings prove to be unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence. … Thus, even if plaintiff had been immunized with the vaccine, he still could have gotten the 2002 infection.

People v. Sequoia Books, Inc.

165 Ill. App. 3d 143 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 19, 1988

The court later noted the following: “The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing … As such, it is clearly distinguishable. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Code (Ill. Rev.

Hanna v. AMERICAN NAT'L BK. & TRUST CO.

176 Ill. App. 3d 938 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 1988

No business establishments front on Deming Place and the street maintains an open and airy quality. … Further, it is clearly possible that the agreement was not intended, as defendants argue, to constitute an abandonment of the setback line where it had been abolished by a court decree, but rather the intention was that the

Micklos v. Highsmith

149 Ill. App. 3d 779 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1986

Thus Hightower qualified as an expert witness under Supreme Court Rule 220 (103 Ill. 2d R. 220). … This allegation of error does not specify the grounds upon which it is based and is clearly inadequate under the standard enunciated in Brown and in section 2 — 1202(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev.

Cantigny Trust v. Department of Revenue

171 Ill. App. 3d 1082 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1988

Certain well-established principles govern the construction of the statute. … Similarly, a second building used as a staff residence also did not qualify for exemption because the employees were not required by the nature of their duties to live on the premises and no educational functions took place

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

366 Ill. App. 3d 187 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 5, 2006

Accordingly, we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. … Law Dictionary defines “possession” as: “The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified

Bossman v. Village of Riverton

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 1997

It is because of this immunity from review that legislative bodies must confine them­selves to the prescrib­ing of general rules. … While balancing these factors would appear to create a question of fact, this balancing clearly establishes that there was room for a legitimate differ­ence of opinion concerning the reasonableness of the rezoning and that

Saia v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 2006

This case presents the question of whether a foreign corporation that designs a product can immunize itself from liability for negligent design by marketing the product through a subsidiary. … 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.

Klose v. Mende Modified on Denial of Rehearing - replaces opinion filed December 7, 2001 Opinion text corrected May 24, 2002

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 18, 2002

At a minimum, however, a valid order needs to incorporate as much of the survey as necessary to clearly indicate the courses and distances of the route of the road and the land over which it passes. … The common and ordinary use establishing the right to an easement by prescription limits and qualifies it so that it cannot be given to different uses and purposes.

Taylor v. Police Board of the City of Chicago

2011 IL App (1st) 101156 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 2011

The court noted that such findings are entitled to “extreme deference” and are not subject to reversal unless “clearly erroneous.” … the Board’s ruling that Taylor committed perjury, which it issued without disclosing its reasoning, was clearly erroneous.

Chicago Teachers Union v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2002

rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.'" … Instead, the grievance alleged, the Board of Education assigned Greenburg to teach second grade and assigned a less senior and less qualified teacher to the pre-kindergarten class.

Pease v. ACE HARDWARE HOME CENTER OF ROUND LAKE NO. 252c

147 Ill. App. 3d 546 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 1986

The Kimmel court also stated that it could not say, based upon its examination of the record, that “damages clearly proven had been overlooked.” 36 Ill. App. 2d 137, 142 , 183 N.E.2d 13, 15 . … We disagree and find Morita properly qualified as an expert.