Case law

Casualty Insurance v. North-Brook Property & Casualty Insurance

150 Ill. App. 3d 472 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1986

Casualty argues that this exclusion further qualifies and limits Schal’s coverage to Schal’s general supervision of Mid-American. … These allegations clearly suggest that Schal had supervisory responsibility and are sufficient to establish that Schal’s liability to Krkljus may arise out of its general supervision of the construction operations performed

Prakash v. Parulekar

2020 IL App (1st) 191819 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 3, 2020

The clear language of the Act establishes that it was not intended to protect those who commit tortious acts and then seek refuge in the immunity conferred by the Act. Sandholm, 2012 IL 111443, ¶ 45. … These allegations, if proved, establish the severe emotional distress necessary to the tort.

Johannesen v. Eddins

963 N.E.2d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2011

Eventually, the board granted variations establishing an eastern sideyard setback of 32 feet and a front setback of 126 feet. … . ¶ 31 Here, the trial court clearly ruled only on the motion to dismiss brought under the Act.

Vilardo v. Barrington Community School District 220

406 Ill. App. 3d 713 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2010

“A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.” … In this case, the trial court concluded that plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3 — 102(a) for defendant to protect plaintiff.

Township of Jubilee v. State of Illinois

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2010

The plat clearly shows “granite” and “sandstone” at the four corners of the “public square.” … The State fails to present us with any facts that establish that the Township is actually attempting to sell the “public square.”

Sanitary District of Decatur v. Pollution Control Board

66 Ill. App. 3d 251 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1978

plaintiff’s legal interests, in which the ripening seeds of litigation may be seen and which cast doubt, insecurity, and uncertainty upon plaintiff’s rights or status damages plaintiff’s pecuniary or material interests and establishes … Finally, PCB claims sovereign immunity as a bar to the action. Except as the legislature may provide by law, sovereign immunity was abolished by article XIII, section 4, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

Prakash v. Parulekar

2020 IL App (1st) 191819 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2020

The clear language of the Act establishes that it was not intended to protect those who commit tortious acts and then seek refuge in the immunity conferred by the Act. … We find that defendant has failed to establish that plaintiff’s IIED claim was meritless and retaliatory.

Shefts v. City of Chicago

238 Ill. App. 3d 37 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1992

We note that the City’s motion for summary judgment encompassed the allegation that the City was immune from liability under the Tort Immunity Act. … On the issue of immunity, the City contends that under section 5— 101 of the Tort Immunity Act, the City has no duty to establish an emergency service and, therefore, the City is immune from tort liability.

In re Marriage of Murray

2014 IL App (2d) 121253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2014

App. 3d 78, 80 (1994), the Conservation District argues that the penalty prescribed by section 35 of the Withholding Act qualifies as “ ‘punitive or exemplary damages’ ” under section 2-102 of the Tort Immunity … App. 3d at 82-83. ¶ 50 Further, denying the Conservation District immunity from a penalty under section 35 of the Withholding Act would contravene the well-established policy of section 2-102 of the Tort

Green v. Chicago Board of Education

407 Ill. App. 3d 721 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 2011

Section 4—102 of the Act states, in relevant part: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection … Section 4—102 of the Act does not contain the same qualifying language as section 3—108 of the Act.

Grane v. Grane

143 Ill. App. 3d 979 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 21, 1986

Plaintiff clearly pleaded for rescission of the arbitration agreement, and, in the alternative, for damages against Boodell. … It is well established that “an arbitrator is immune from suit for all acts which he performs in his capacity as an arbitrator.” (Tamari v. Conrad (7th Cir. 1977), 552 F.2d 778, 780 , quoting Cahn v.

Horrell v. City of Chicago

145 Ill. App. 3d 428 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1986

Both of these ordinances are clearly discretionary, and authorize the commissioner of public works to place bus stops where “as he shall determine” they are appropriate, and place crosswalks where “in his opinion there is … Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill.

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

2017 IL App (2d) 160381 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 2017

The issue in Steidl was whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct. … The court held that the district court correctly denied the officers’ motion for dismissal on qualified immunity.

People Ex Rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago

325 Ill. App. 3d 196 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 10, 2001

Although on its face the immunity in section 2 — 201 would apply to alleged constitutional violations because such violations meet the definition of “injury” in section 1 — 204, the title of the Tort Immunity Act clearly … The Diocese’s last argument is that the trial court erred in dismissing its nuisance claim because the City did not establish the elements of local governmental discretionary immunity under the Tort Immunity Act.

City of Chicago v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

293 Ill. App. 3d 897 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1997

Here, there is no ambiguity; the statute clearly states that the Board can be sued, but tort actions must be brought in the Court of Claims. … Furthermore, the Illinois Municipal Code of 1961 authorized municipalities to establish and maintain parks. Peoria, 76 Ill. 2d at 477 , citing Ill. Rev.

Williams v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CLINTON COM.

52 Ill. App. 3d 328 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 1977

This assumption was erroneous since everything that was thrown out occupied that amount of space and part of what was discarded was clearly noncoaching material. … Stat. 1965, ch. 85, par. 1—101 et seq.), governmental immunities have become the exception rather than the rule. Unless the defendant can demonstrate an applicable immunity under the statute, there is no immunity.

People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Knecht Services, Inc.

216 Ill. App. 3d 843 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1991

Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 619(a)(9)) on the basis of absolute immunity. … The Attorney General contends that he is entitled to absolute immunity since the allegedly libelous statements were made in conjunction with a matter clearly committed to the responsibility of the Attorney General.

Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc.

462 Ill. Dec. 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2022

The immunities established in the Tort Immunity Act are affirmative matters, and so local public entities bear the burden of proving their immunity. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370. … Unlike section 2-105, section 3-110 clearly delineated the scope of the immunities afforded therein (specifically, immunity for injuries occurring on, in, or adjacent to a waterway) and to who they were afforded (specifically

People v. Figueroa

2020 IL App (2d) 160650 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 2020

In the event that—I mean, at this point, clearly she would have a right to claim the Fifth but for the State’s use immunity. … Alleged Noncompliance With the Use Immunity Statute ¶ 43 Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously granted use immunity to Casas and Patton because the State failed to establish that those witnesses either

Barnett v. Zion Park District

267 Ill. App. 3d 283 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1994

Here, the liability alleged by plaintiff is clearly based on the conduct of the lifeguards at the pool and not on any physical defect of the premises. … We conclude that section 3 — 108(b) clearly and unequivocally immunizes defendant where supervision is provided during pool hours.