Case law

Better Government Ass'n v. Illinois High School Ass'n

2016 IL App (1st) 151356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2016

App. 3d 1065 (2005), in which IHSA had sought protection under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … Instead, the challenged statements were legal arguments asserted by IHSA in an effort to establish immunity under the Tort Immunity Act.

Cooney v. Magnabosco

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2011

If it is established that such person has violated or is violating the injunction, the court may punish the offender for contempt of court. … Again, “ ‘[s]horthand reporter’ means a person who is technically qualified and certified under this Act to practice shorthand reporting.” 225 ILCS 415/4(5) (West 2008).

Hemminger v. Nehring

399 Ill. App. 3d 1118 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 2010

In other words, plaintiff contended that this established a negligent treatment scenario, which is not immunized under section 6 — 106 of the Tort Immunity Act. Willis, 373 Ill. … This is a screening test that is clearly part of the diagnostic process and precisely the conduct that both sections 6 — 105 and 6 — 106 immunize. See 745 ILCS 10/6 — 105, 6 — 106 (West 2004).

C. G. E. Ford Heights, LLC v. Miller Modification of June 9, 1999

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 1999

Plaintiffs, which burn tires, no longer qualify as QSWEFs under the amendment and are not entitled to the retail rate. … We will not render advisory opinions or decide cases merely to establish precedent. Berlin , 179 Ill. 2d at 8 .

Koh v. Village Greens of Woodridge

158 Ill. App. 3d 226 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 1987

Failed to establish procedures to keep participants in a safe area during tournament play; c. … App. 3d 784, 787 , 391 N.E.2d 451 ), and a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings which would entitle the

Wright v. Gurnee Park District

2025 IL App (2d) 240687 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 21, 2025

The Tort Immunity Act is central to this case. … It is plain from the photos that there was an area of higher grass clearly visible.

Valfer v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare

2015 IL App (1st) 142284 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 9, 2015

Although summary judgment is appropriate if a plaintiff cannot establish an element of his claim, it should only be granted when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. Dardeen v. … Here, section 10.2 of the Act clearly defines “willful and wanton” in a manner that differs from the standard definition. As such, we find Dr.

Generes v. Foreman

277 Ill. App. 3d 353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 1995

Judicial immunity apparently originated, in medieval times, as a device for discouraging collateral attacks and thereby helping to establish appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting judicial error. … Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible

Murray v. Chicago Youth Center

352 Ill. App. 3d 95 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 16, 2004

The principles to be applied in construing provisions of the Act are well established: “ ‘[0]ur primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. … The plaintiff argued that section 3 — 108 of the Act does not establish unconditional immunity but, rather, provides an exception for willful and wanton misconduct.

Parmar v. Madigan

2017 IL App (2d) 160286 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 6, 2017

affirmative defenses, defendants claimed that several counts in plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ¶ 12 In his response, plaintiff claimed that the legislature clearly … Plaintiff did not dispute Flores’s averments, but claimed that duress was established by the Estate Tax Act’s provision for penalties, interest, and personal liability.

People v. Bracey

93 Ill. App. 3d 864 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 1981

The trial court clearly has the authority to grant immunity to a witness on the application of the State. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 106 — 1.) … The defendant does not dispute the fact that Neal clearly and repeatedly identified the defendant as his assailant. We believe that the prosecutor’s remarks constituted no more than harmless error.

Collins v. Town of Normal

2011 IL App (4th) 100694 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2011

At the opposite end, section 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act -3-  specifies some situations where the Tort Immunity Act does not apply, where there clearly is … “[U]nder established Illinois law, public entities possess no immunized discretion to discharge employees for exercising their workers’ compensation rights.” Smith v.

New Heights Recovery & Power, LLC v. Bower

347 Ill. App. 3d 89 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 9, 2004

The Act directed electric utility companies to enter into 20-year contracts to buy electricity from qualified solid waste energy facilities (labeled with the acronym QSWEF) at a “retail rate” that was higher than the market … The supreme court, relying on section 4 of the Statute on Statutes, held the amendment applied prospectively because it constituted a substantive change in the law by establishing a tax credit for S corporation shareholders

Possekel v. O'DONNELL

51 Ill. App. 3d 313 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 1977

At common law schools did not enjoy any special immunity by being schools, although at one time they may have been immune from suit if they were governmental institutions or charitable institutions. … Accordingly, this court cannot find that this statute created an immunity from negligence for day-care centers and nursery schools not run by a school system unless the language of the statute clearly requires such a finding

Monson v. City of Danville

2017 IL App (4th) 160593 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 2017

the immunity afforded by the Act. … The college responded that its building and grounds director’s handling of the height deviation clearly involved policy and discretion, which afforded the college immunity under section 2-201 of the Act.

People v. Peterson

397 Ill. App. 3d 1048 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2010

Ct. 1480 (1996), the United States Supreme Court rejected the notion that selective prosecution qualifies as an affirmative defense. … Defendant’s cross-appeal challenges the court’s pretrial rulings regarding discovery related to selective prosecution, defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges based on federal preemption and immunity under the

Starr v. Ward

289 Ill. App. 3d 299 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1997

Under this grant of authority, the legislature reinstated sovereign immunity in the circuit courts (745 ILCS 5/1 (West 1994)) but established the Court of Claims and invested it with exclusive jurisdiction to hear "[a]ll … Clearly the Safety Code only regulates the conduct of IDOT employees. Only IDOT employees are obligated to be familiar and comply with Safety Code provisions.

Jackson v. Alverez

358 Ill. App. 3d 555 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 10, 2005

immunity. … In her filings below, she clearly made the relevant argument.

Doe v. Chicago Board of Education

339 Ill. App. 3d 848 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 2003

Regarding section 2—615, the Board argued that plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to establish willful and wanton misconduct. … Section 4—102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides in pertinent part: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service

Kirschbaum v. The Village of Homer Glen

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 2006

The Third District holds the Tort Immunity Act does not impose duties, but confers immunities. Havens v. Harris Township, 175 Ill. App. 3d 768, 771, 530 N.E.2d 284, 285 (3rd Dist. 1988); Bainter v. … CONCLUSION Because we find that section 3-102 of the Tort Immunity Act does not create a duty for defendants to clear brush from an intersection where there are clearly visible traffic control devices at each corner