Case law

Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial National Bank

99 Ill. App. 108 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 24, 1901

Probably no single act done by Jackson by authority of the company, and with its knowledge, could be held to be sufficient to authorize the act here in question, but taking them all together, the jury were not so clearly … , and the power of transferring it to others with the same immunity which attaches in his hands, is incident to his legal right and necessary to sustain the character and value of the instrument as property, and to protect

Wells v. Travis

284 Ill. App. 3d 282 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1996

The court reasoned: "Holding that the limitation period is not triggered until a prospective malpractice plaintiff secures an expert witness qualified to testify to the described necessary elements for a prima facie case … Medical negligence cases typically turn on opinion witnesses to establish the standard of care and breach of that standard. See DeLuna v. St.

In Re Detention of Stanbridge

408 Ill. App. 3d 553 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2011

In addition, although the court stated in its February 2010 written order that it considered Witherspoon’s amended psychological evaluation, the court’s February 2010 order clearly shows that it placed greater emphasis on … See Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d at 49 , 932 N.E.2d at 1025 (as long as the evidence establishes a plausible account, probable cause is established).

People v. Hamilton

100 Ill. App. 3d 942 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 5, 1981

Ct. 1770 , is cited by Hamilton as authority for his position that the jury was “death-qualified.” … However, it is equally well settled that such an instruction should not be given if the evidence clearly demonstrates that the crime was murder and there is no evidence to support a conviction of manslaughter. People v.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Highland Park

29 Ill. App. 3d 878 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1975

Nor did the evidence clearly establish the highest and best use from a purely financial aspect so as to make this a substantial factor in the decision. … This, however, is a qualified right and subject to the zoning powers of the City.

Chicago Park District v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

354 Ill. App. 3d 595 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 2004

Which issues are mandatory, and which are not, will be very fact-specific questions that the Board, given its experience, is eminently qualified to make. … The District’s refusal to bargain was further established by Mr. Rose’s letter to Ms.

Samuelson v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS

360 Ill. Dec. 658 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 2012

A decision is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court holds a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) … We disagree. ¶ 35 We note that we may only reverse the Board's decision to apply the substantial compliance standard if it is clearly erroneous.

Rabin v. Karlin and Fleisher, LLC

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 18, 2011

Rather, an employee must show that the discharge violated the public policy that the cited provision clearly mandates.”). … The phrase ‘clearly mandated public policy’ implies that the policy will be recognizable simply because it is clear.

People v. Nino

279 Ill. App. 3d 1027 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 1996

The record clearly shows that Michael and Danny received immunity from prosecution for their involvement in two separate murder cases. … The record clearly establishes that the State knowingly manipulated the testimony of Aldava concerning facts which bear directly on his credibility.

People v. Workman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 2000

It is well established that even a layperson is competent to testify regarding a person's intoxication from alcohol, because such observations are within the competence of all adults of normal experience. … not qualified to give expert testimony on the complex physiological effects that alcohol produces in diabetics.

Osage Corp. v. Simon

245 Ill. App. 3d 836 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 1993

We believe that case law establishes that the Simons adequately alleged that the mortgage is invalid because First Cook procured it by exerting duress upon Heidi Simon. … she was informed of her brother’s circumstances, the court reasoned that it was “but natural that she would cling to her brother and seek to aid him *** under the pressure of his importunities ***. *** While no promise of immunity

People v. Petty

25 Ill. App. 3d 35 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 23, 1975

In fact, many instances cited by the defendant as evidencing the State’s Attorney’s “prejudicial” remarks and elicitation of “prejudicial” testimony were clearly within the range of permissible latitude and, consequently, … Having considered all of the assignments of error, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, that she received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and that tire maximum

People v. Price

428 Ill. Dec. 826 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 24, 2018

criminal court (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(a) (West Supp. 2015) ) and made firearm enhancements discretionary, rather than mandatory, for such individuals (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(b) (West Supp. 2015) ). ¶ 5 Rasaan's counsel was clearly … It was based on well-established principles of statutory construction. ¶ 16 As the Howard court explained, to determine whether a statute applies retroactively, Illinois courts apply the two-step analysis set forth in Landgraf

Martin v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 221116 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 2023

An instruction does not justify reversal unless it clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant. Dynek v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 190209, ¶ 25. … Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456, 468 (1976), the supreme court established the standard for a landowner’s liability for a dangerous condition on the land.

In Re Marriage of Winter

387 Ill. App. 3d 21 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 2008

ANA’s marital portion shall be divided by a qualified domestic relations order. 1 JEROME shall obtain the necessary documents from the Pension Administrator in order to enter the qualified domestic relations order.” … While the circuit court’s contempt powers were clearly ineffective against Mr.

Foulks v. Community Unit School District 428

2021 IL App (2d) 200461-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 2021

Relevant here, defendants argued that Foulks’s amended complaint failed to allege any facts to establish a claim for willful and wanton conduct as required by the Tort Immunity Act, because the complaint did not argue that … A fact is considered well pleaded if a plaintiff has clearly set out the ultimate fact she intends to prove. Id.

Hamer v. Village of Deerfield

33 Ill. App. 3d 804 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 1975

These allegations of fact clearly support the plaintiffs’ allegations that the program was compulsory, not voluntary. … City of Rock Island, 45 Ill.App.2d 76, 84-86 ), unless it is established that there is available to the plaintiffs some other plain, adequate and complete method of obtaining the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled

Koulegeorge v. Human Rights Commission

250 Ill. Dec. 208 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 2000

It would be unnecessary to require a respondent to present testimony or other evidence where a petitioner has clearly failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, as more fully discussed below regarding … The ALJ clearly applied the correct standard in considering the evidence presented by petitioner.

Mitchell v. Michael's Sports Lounge

240 N.E.3d 603 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 2023

See Ferguson, 202 Ill. 2d at 313 (finding that the one-year limitation period in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 1998)) required the plaintiff to file her medical … We find that this is clearly a sudden traumatic event, which would trigger the one-year limitation period under the Dramshop Act.

People v. Carron

298 Ill. App. 3d 676 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 1998

Therefore, defendant argues, his conviction for a misdemeanor DUI does not qualify as a violent crime under the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. … The statutory definition of “crime victim” clearly applied to them. At the sentencing hearing, only Kara’s mother and father read their statements into the record.