Case law

Great American Insurance Co. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 2000

The case does not stand for the proposition stated, which is contrary to established law. … The insurance policy here has no provision clearly excluding coverage for violations of the Act or other statutory torts, although West Bend easily could have modified its policy so to provide.

Singh v. Department of Professional Regulation

252 Ill. App. 3d 859 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 9, 1993

John Kueter, after voir dire, was deemed qualified as an expert in community pharmacy in the Chicago area. … In sum, plaintiff has failed to show that the evidence adduced at the hearing did not clearly and substantially support the decision of the DPR in this matter.

People v. Jones

278 Ill. App. 3d 790 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 22, 1996

The State seeks to establish this link by noting Jones’ proximity to the baggie of cocaine. … More importantly, Clague failed to clearly articulate a convincing basis for his conclusion that Jones possessed the cocaine.

Whiting Corp. v. Professional Employment, Inc.

186 Ill. App. 3d 705 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1989

She was a qualified expert witness in this area and defendant never made any objections to her qualifications or to the custom and usage definition of “unconditional guarantee” to which she testified. … Hence, there was no need for plaintiff to prove any specific statements made to plaintiff by defendant’s employees in order to establish its case.

The Carle Foundation v. Cunningham Township

2016 IL App (4th) 140795 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2016

Establishing an Exemption for the First Time ¶ 62 Although the General Assembly has categorically exempted certain real estate from taxation (35 ILCS 200/15-35 to 15-185 (West 2014)), anyone wishing to establish … App. 3d 734, 741 (2008).) ¶ 78 In addition to establishing this “new category of ownership for [the] charitable property tax exemption,” the legislature intended, in section 15-86, to “establish quantifiable

People v. Battiste

133 Ill. App. 2d 62 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 6, 1971

The law applicable clearly establishes that such a petition is available in a criminal case, but is limited to bringing before the court "errors of fact of such magnitude as would have prevented the rendition of the judgment … Defendant’s petition does not so qualify, and the trial court acted within its lawful discretion in denying it.

Favia v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2008

He may be qualified in spite of this as an expert. He may be. I don't know. I want to hear what he says." … The limits on the scope of their expertise were well established on cross-examination. Deputy Ewing's testimony identifies more than one contributing cause to the accident. Sgt.

People v. Faulkner

2017 IL App (1st) 132884 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2017

In any event, even if she could access the attic herself, in her condition, she clearly said it wasn’t her gun, though she had no idea it was up there. … Rather, they disagree on whether his 2008 felony conviction for AUUW satisfied the second of the two qualifying offenses under the statute.

Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook County v. Yelk

115 Ill. App. 2d 78 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 1969

Schlieske, who was also licensed and qualified as an appraiser. … In such cases the remarks and conduct of counsel were clearly prejudicial.

Basken v. Cordero-Dennis

2025 IL App (1st) 231708-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2025

Our supreme court reversed, holding that the immunity provision was inapplicable where the complaint clearly alleged that the district was “independently negligent because it allowed a rut to form and deepen in the playground … To sustain a claim of willful and wanton conduct, a plaintiff must establish the elements of negligence, as well as establish either a deliberate intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for

Hallowell v. University of Chicago Hospital

334 Ill. App. 3d 206 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 6, 2002

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.’ Carpenter, 28 Ill. 2d at 121 .” … People qualified in their fields stated their views and gave their reasons for these opinions. Nothing was said that was not grounded somewhere in the evidence.

People v. Williams

385 Ill. App. 3d 359 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 27, 2008

In the case at bar, Lambatos was qualified, without objection, as an expert in forensic biology and forensic DNA analysis and concluded, based upon her expertise, Kooi’s analysis of defendant’s blood, Hapack’s analysis of … Lambatos clearly testified that the mixture at issue was a combination of only defendant’s and the victim’s DNA profiles.

Eckley v. St. Therese Hospital

62 Ill. App. 3d 299 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 1978

Realizing he was not qualified to repair the injuries to the bowel, Dr. Sipos summoned Dr. Pessis, who was a member of the hospital staff and fully qualified to diagnose and perform abdominal surgery. … The argument was clearly erroneous in relating the loan agreement to issues of both liability and damages contrary to the limitations placed upon it by the court in Reese.

Garland v. Department of Labor

121 Ill. App. 3d 562 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 1984

The purpose of this transaction was to qualify the business as a “female minority corporation” as that term is defined under Illinois law. … It is noteworthy that the Unemployment Insurance Act establishes an insurance program, and not a tax. Contributions to the program are placed in trust for those it is intended to assist. (Lindley v.

People v. Lamprey

79 Ill. App. 3d 1065 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1979

There is no doubt the evidence clearly discloses that the bullets which were the subject of testimony came from the gun held and used by defendant. … The determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert lies within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 177, 196 , 242 N.E.2d 208, 219 .)

Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp.

2025 IL App (1st) 230087 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 2025

Serious prejudice occurs when the trial court’s faulty instructions clearly misled the jury. Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 274. … Instead, we will only reverse a judgment if the jury was clearly misled. Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 274. The record here does not demonstrate that the jury was clearly misled.

Larsen v. Provena Hospitals

2015 IL App (4th) 140255 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 26, 2015

Thus, by its plain language, the legislature clearly intended that the Whistleblower Act would apply to physicians who satisfied the statutory defini- tion of employee. … See 105 ILCS 5/14A-30 (West 2010) (ex- plaining the funding available through the Illinois Board of Education for qualified programs fo- cused on the education of gifted and talented children).

Chicago & Northeastern Illinois District Council v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 1997

The party claiming an exemption has the burden of proving clearly and conclusively that the subject property falls within both the constitutional authorization and the terms of the statute under which the exemption is claimed … In either case, the same courses are necessary before one may become qualified to practice optometry.

People v. Fisher

407 Ill. App. 3d 585 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 8, 2011

Rather, “abuse of discretion” is associated with such adjectives as “arbitrary” and “clearly illogical.” Id. … An abuse of discretion goes outside the range of reasonableness and disregards established principles of law, thereby causing a party substantial prejudice. Id.

Norman v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

2020 IL App (1st) 190765 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2020

All notices or offers shall clearly show the date the offer or notice was sent.” Chicago Municipal Code § 5-14-050(a)(3) (amended Apr. 15, 2015). … Bank has not established that the trial court’s award was an abuse of discretion.