Case law

Colella v. JMS Trucking Company of Illinois, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2010

The trial court denied that motion, finding that Brennan’s proffered experience qualified him as an expert. … A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial will not be reversed unless there is an affirmative showing that it clearly abused its discretion.

Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of Revenue

355 Ill. App. 3d 370 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 2005

App. 3d 1129, 1143-45 (2004) (mixed question of law and fact in which the issue of whether the law, as applied to the established facts, is or is not violated receives review under “clearly erroneous” standard. … As demonstrated by the facts of this case, more than one office can arguably qualify as the entity’s most important office.

Schlosser v. State

2012 IL App (3d) 110115 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2012

As such, we must determine whether this offense involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual in order to qualify as a forcible felony. 720 ILCS 5/2-8 (West 2010). … Defendant, through his actions both on the computer and in driving to meet someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl, and then telling police he was the girl’s uncle, clearly exhibited the “contemplation” and

Cooper v. Illinois Publishing & Printing Co.

218 Ill. App. 95 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 21, 1920

And, so, it is the law, that, although publishing the truth, without malice, carries with it immunity from prosecution, publication of that which is false entails liability. … Until the contrary is established by evidence, we must assume that the facts set forth in that record speak the truth and that they spoke the truth when the defendant’s reporter consulted them.

Sorrells v. City of Macomb

44 N.E.3d 453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 2015

The City also argued that it was immune from liability under section 2-104 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Illinois Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2-104 (West 2012) … the Illinois Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-103 (West 2012)) (providing immunity to a local public entity for adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or failing to enforce a law)

People v. Yancy

306 Ill. Dec. 657 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2005

Accordingly, we find that the testimony was clearly improper hearsay. See People v. Smith, 256 Ill. … Second, the prior convictions must themselves have been established through procedures that complied with due process.

People v. Smith

257 Ill. App. 3d 252 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 1993

Defendant here clearly is guilty of a Class 4 felony because of his 1978 burglary conviction. … The supreme court ruled this was permissible because no single factor was used both to establish the elements of defendant’s crime and to sentence him to an extended term of imprisonment. (Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d at 85 .)

People v. Jamesson

329 Ill. App. 3d 446 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 2002

Schecht added that he had been qualified to testify in court as a gang expert on 15 to 20 prior occasions. … Inasmuch as defendant is the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute, he bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional violation. See Wright, 194 Ill. 2d at 24 ; People v. DePalma, 256 Ill.

Kalalinick v. Knoll

97 Ill. App. 3d 660 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 1981

It was early established in Weisguth v. … or the basis for the opinion; (4) the author’s authority and identity were not established; (5) the document was without relevance; and (6) it failed to qualify as a business record.

People v. Johnson

173 Ill. App. 3d 998 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 1988

Accordingly, the trial court allowed the jury to be death penalty qualified. … It is well established that a jury questioned regarding the imposition of the death penalty is presumed to be a fair jury on the issue of guilt or innocence. People v.

People v. Henderson

129 Ill. App. 3d 611 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 1984

The time frame was clearly established. No separate facts were alleged establishing reasonable cause to believe additional conversations would take place. … Clearly, McCarthy was entitled to rely on this firsthand observation by Crockett.” 84 Ill. App. 3d 359, 367 , 405 N.E.2d 809, 816-17 .

People v. Andrew B.

386 Ill. App. 3d 337 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 2, 2008

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent clearly established -4- No. 2--07--0781 the criteria necessary to satisfy the public-interest exception to the mootness … A respondent's remedy for the previous improper detention, or for any improper detention after the court orders the respondent discharged, is not immunity from subsequent detention that would otherwise be valid.

Malec v. City of Belleville

384 Ill. App. 3d 465 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2008

“It is established that a taxpayer can enjoin the misuse of public funds, based upon taxpayers’ ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency caused by misappropriation thereof … The distinction between misappropriation of funds out of the general revenue and out of such trust fund is clearly set out in our decisions.

Doe v. Surgicare of Joliet, Inc.

268 Ill. App. 3d 793 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Plaintiffs properly pleaded facts establishing a duty owed by the defendants and a breach of that duty. … A trial court should grant a motion to dismiss a cause of action only when "it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven which will entitle a plaintiff to recover.” (Burdinie v.

People v. Johnson

159 Ill. App. 3d 991 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 21, 1987

Kemp (11th Cir. 1986), 794 F.2d 1478, 1483 , prosecutors could allow one or two black jurors to serve on the jury to immunize their other challenges. … We cannot say that the court’s acceptance of these answers was clearly erroneous.

Reavy Grady & Crouch Realtors v. Hall

110 Ill. App. 3d 325 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 1982

The plaintiffs now claim that an agency between Kennedy and defendant was established by ratification. … The listing agreement clearly delegated a general power to sell defendant’s property.

Alford v. Phipps

169 Ill. App. 3d 845 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 28, 1988

The foregoing provisions clearly specify what information is to be included in the attorney’s affidavit. … In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts which, when considered together, establish the cause of action which the plaintiff seeks to state. (Segall v. Berkson (1985), 139 Ill.

Long v. Mathew

336 Ill. App. 3d 595 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2003

App. 3d 1057, 1065 , 491 N.E.2d 139, 144 (1986) (deference must be given to the trial court’s findings). “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ means clearly against logic; the question is not whether the appellate court agrees with the … a qualified health-care professional has determined there is reasonable and meritorious cause for filing his action.

People v. Rucker

346 Ill. App. 3d 873 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 19, 2003

That forensic chemist Gwendolyn Brister is employed by the Chicago — Illinois State Police and is qualified to testify as an expert in the area of forensic chemistry. … Rule 606 clearly states that when a timely posttrial or postsentencing motion has been filed by “counsel or by defendant, if not represented by counsel, any notice of appeal filed before entry of the order *** shall have

Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board

308 Ill. App. 3d 741 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1999

If Swenson emitted less than 25 tons of VOM per year, it would qualify for an exemption from the emissions limitation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 215.206 (1996). … Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 204-05 (1998) (holding that when an administrative agency’s decision was a mixed question of fact and law, a reviewing court should apply a “clearly erroneous” standard