Case law

Citizens Securities & Investment Co. v. Dennis

236 Ill. App. 307 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 9, 1925

City of Aurora, 109 Ill. 165 , it was held (p. 167) that ultimate facts “are, when considered with reference to the facts or evidence by which they are established or proved, but the logical results of the proofs, or, in … These allegations, in our opinion, bring the case at bar clearly within the rule announced in the case of Curtiss v. Martin, supra.

Edward Don & Co. v. Zagel

95 Ill. App. 3d 589 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 13, 1981

“Under this doctrine, relative or qualifying words or phrases modify words or phrases which are immediately preceding and do not modify those which are more remote.” (City of Mount Carmel v. … It is essential to economic well-being * * Clearly, the legislature must have considered the burden placed upon all of the taxpayers of Illinois when establishing these taxes.

Melliere v. Luhr Bros., Inc.

302 Ill. App. 3d 794 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 14, 1999

For purposes of venue, there are three distinct ways that the residency of a corporation can be established. … Clair County and that the airport facility qualified as an other office under the venue statute. We will only address the other office provision of the venue statute.

Courtney v. BD. OF ED. OF CHICAGO

6 Ill. App. 3d 424 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 1972

." • 1, 2 The standards which must be applied in testing the sufficiency of a complaint are well established. Section 33(1) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. … While the certificates were still effective the Board gave another principal's examination and issued another list of acceptable and qualified candidates.

Crabtree v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

89 Ill. App. 3d 35 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 1980

, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” ( 404 U.S. 97,106 , 30 L. … We cannot say that the decision in Liepelt established a new principle of law whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed by past precedent. See Domeracki v.

Gillmore v. ILL. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

345 Ill. App. 3d 497 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 19, 2005

The Department held as follows: "In this case, the annuity clearly does not pay benefits in approximately equal periodic payments over the term of the annuity, and the local office correctly determined that, accordingly, … State's Administrative Regulations Section 5-2(12) of the Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/5-2(12) (West 2002)) provides that the "Department shall by rule establish the amounts of assets to be disregarded in determining eligibility

Chiero v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital

74 Ill. App. 3d 166 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 21, 1979

Failed to consult with the anesthesiologist or provide a properly qualified anesthesiologist prior to sedation.” … medical testimony, where the issue is clearly one which cannot be determined by laymen alone, summary judgment could be allowed.”

Shine v. Wabash Railroad

8 Ill. App. 2d 521 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1956

Presumptions are never indulged in against established facts.” … While the above in our opinion clearly states the applicable law, the exceptions defined therein were not necessary to the opinion. In Bernier, Adm’r v. Illinois Cent. R.

Fopay v. Noveroske

31 Ill. App. 3d 182 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 14, 1975

On the other hand, this case contains an underlying thread of a qualified privilege arising from defendant’s position and duties to the hospital and public. … In Curtis and Ginzburg, the courts found that the defendants were clearly aware of the seriousness of their charges.

Farmers State Bank v. Doering

80 Ill. App. 3d 959 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 1, 1980

Where a guaranty contract is unequivocal in its terms, it must be interpreted according to the language used since it is presumed that the parties meant what their language clearly imports. … However, this broad coverage is qualified by the typewritten phrase “all notes of indebtedness.”

People v. Fetter

227 Ill. App. 3d 1003 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 10, 1992

Before reversing a sentence imposed by the trial court it must be clearly evident that the sentence was wrongfully imposed. (People v. Ward (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 516, 526 .) … Upon reviewing the record in its entirety, we cannot say that it is clearly evident that the defendant’s sentence was improperly imposed.

People v. Bradley

22 Ill. App. 3d 1076 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 1974

Petitioner stated that the facts were established by the attached certificate of Dr. S. Lipkin. … Likewise, we do not believe that the evidence adduced by the State regarding the incident in the courtroom clearly and convincingly established that respondent, without provocation, initiated the scuffle in the courtroom.

Mellon v. Coffelt

313 Ill. App. 3d 619 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2000

The free access clause qualifies the due process standard by imposing the additional requirement that court filing fees relate to the operation and maintenance of the court system. Crocker v. … The plaintiff bears the burden of clearly establishing the alleged constitutional violation. Wenger v. Finley, 185 Ill. App. 3d 907, 911 (1989).

Adco Services, Inc. v. Bullard

256 Ill. App. 3d 655 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 21, 1993

The only question certified to this court for appeal, however, was what type of immunity applies to the letters. … The allegedly defamatory matters clearly were connected with or relative to the instant cause. All doubts will be resolved in favor of relevancy or pertinency, for an absolute privilege to apply. (Harrell v.

Goertz v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.

19 Ill. App. 2d 261 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 1958

“Manifest means clearly evident, clear, plain, indisputable.” Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 331 Ill.App. 143 . It “. . . requires that an opposite conclusion be clearly evident.” Arboit v. … Plaintiff’s instruction number 4 requiring plaintiff to establish his case by the greater weight would not permit the jury to decide an “evenly balanced” case favorably to plaintiff.

People v. Cherry

88 Ill. App. 3d 1048 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 10, 1980

When these principles are applied to the first statement made by Michelle Cherry, we find it was clearly a spontaneous declaration. … It is well established that asking the declarant “what happened” is insufficient to destroy the spontaneity of a response. (People v. Damen (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 464, 469 , 193 N.E.2d 25 ; 30; People v.

Midwest Central Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

213 Ill. Dec. 894 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 1995

In lieu of an evidentiary hearing before the Board, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts and joint exhibits, establishing the following. … This means they will not be disturbed by this court unless they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or unless an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. (City of Freeport v.

People ex rel. Forrest v. Winston-Bey

252 Ill. App. 3d 924 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 19, 1993

The decision of the trier of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. Gulley, 198 Ill. App. 3d 91 , 555 N.E.2d 752 . … In this case, the jury found it was reliable and, based on Boonlayangoor’s testimony, that finding was not clearly erroneous.

Chicago Board of Education v. Payne

102 Ill. App. 3d 741 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 1981

Payne’s conduct in 1976 was clearly irremediable. The hearing officer erred in finding to the contrary. … Clearly, this provision was intended to be a “sword” for the Board rather than a “shield” for a teacher.

Hall v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board

98 Ill. App. 3d 824 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 1981

In so doing, we must be mindful that the burden is on the person claiming the exemption to prove clearly and conclusively that he is entitled to one. People ex rel. County Collector v. … Neither at the original hearing, nor on remand, did plaintiff establish that the work constituted maintenance and repair under the statute.