Case law

Mile Square Service Corp. v. City of Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals

42 Ill. App. 3d 849 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 28, 1976

The last two witnesses called by plaintiff were qualified as real estate experts. The first expert witness was both a real estate broker and an appraiser. … But we are not persuaded to disturb the Zoning Board’s decision since our examination of the record compels us to conclude that an opposite decision is not clearly evident. Wolbach v.

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 .)

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.

Tishman Midwest Management Corp. v. Wayne Jarvis, Ltd.

146 Ill. App. 3d 684 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1986

Attached to the motion to dismiss count I was an affidavit along with documentary evidence establishing that Mid-Continental sat on four parcels, not three. … Tishman contended that Jarvis could not meet the requirements necessary to qualify for class-representative status under section 2 — 801 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2 — 801).

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

People v. Rotuno

156 Ill. App. 3d 989 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1987

We concluded that “[tjhis evidence, combined with the jury’s common knowledge, is sufficient to establish that defendant’s conduct caused bodily harm.” ( 53 Ill. App. 3d 810, 816 , 368 N.E.2d 950, 955 .) … Clearly defendant was strongly resisting the officers and was attempting to free herself from them.

Druck v. ILLINOIS STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS

899 N.E.2d 437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 2008

Illinois courts are guided by established rules of statutory construction. … After reviewing all the words and phrases in section 10-8 of the Election Code, we discovered that section 10-8 clearly codifies two conditions precedent that must be complied with in order for nomination papers to be valid

Water Pipe Extension v. City of Chicago

195 Ill. App. 3d 50 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 1990

Our review of the record does not convince us that a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Board is clearly evident. … For that reason, the Board’s holding that the unions failed to establish an unfair labor practice on the part of the City is affirmed.

People v. Craig

2023 IL App (1st) 200311-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 28, 2023

¶ 35 The dissenting justice noted that the defendant did not argue that he was ineligible for an extended-term sentence, but merely that the record “does not clearly establish that he was.” Id. … The record, therefore, does not affirmatively establish that defendant qualified for extended-term sentencing. Misapplication of extended-term sentencing constitutes second-prong plain error.

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, Ltd. Partnership v. Chicago Board Options Exchange

105 N.E.3d 160 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

With respect to Tait, Knabjian explained that he received a warning because “he didn’t provide the qualifying information that says each one is handled on a case-by-case basis so, essentially, [he] … The defendant may meet its burden of proof either by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in its favor or by establishing the absence of evidence to support the nonmovant

Nichols v. City of Chicago Heights

31 N.E.3d 824 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2015

Tort Immunity Act. … 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act.

People v. Nau

209 Ill. App. 3d 805 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 1991

Respondent argues that the certificate which accompanied the petition does not establish that the preparer was a physician, qualified examiner, or clinical psychologist. … Clearly, this doctrine is not applicable in the case before us. In the discharge hearing, respondent was acquitted of murder and should not have been termed a “murderer.”

Channel v. Capen

46 Ill. App. 234 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 11, 1892

Assuming, as both sides do, that the words “ in this State” are intended to refer to and qualify “ estates,” and do not refer to the place where the owner thereof may die intestate, they clearly refer to personal as well … it, except so far as the intention is clearly manifested.

People v. Priest

297 Ill. App. 3d 797 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 1998

qualify. … The evidence clearly showed that, on that night, she explicitly refused entry by defendant. Defendant presented no evidence Peggy authorized him to enter her home on that night.

Mina v. Board of Education for Homewood-Flossmoor, Community High School District 233

348 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 2004

Consequently, we employ a clearly erroneous standard of review in the instant case, and note, accordingly, that a decision rendered by the hearing officer or the Board is clearly erroneous only when, based on the entire record … Accordingly, because the University Park home — the Anghels’ true permanent residence— was outside the boundaries of the district, Andra did not qualify as a resident student at the start of the 2002-03 school year and could

Algozino v. Welch Fruit Products Co.

345 Ill. App. 135 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 3, 1952

We think it was prejudicial error to refuse an offer of proof which so clearly tended to impeach and to prove interest on the part of the. hostile witness. … No authorities are cited by plaintiffs to support their theory that because Cullinan, a defendant, was called under section 60 of the Civil Practice Act his codefendants were thereby precluded from establishing interest or

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.

Morri v. Freeman

2020 IL App (4th) 190018-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2020

As program director, it was defendant’s job to establish rules regulating the acquisition and possession of personal property by the residents and to enforce those rules. See 59 Ill. Adm. Code 299.330 (2000). … Thus, the complained-of actions clearly involved matters that were squarely within defendant’s normal, official functions.

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.