Case law

Illinois Municipal League Risk Management Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

2016 IL App (1st) 131180 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 2, 2016

The contract required Lynwood to notify the Association of any occurrence, and the contract established the Association's right and duty to defend Lynwood. … Because the county did not qualify as an insurer, it could not count as a primary insurer.

Pasquinelli v. Sodexo, Inc.

456 Ill. Dec. 596 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2021

The client care agreement further provided, in relevant part: “¶ 5: The Client acknowledges that Comfort Keepers employees who are not providing nursing services under the Plan of Care are not qualified … Kean leaving the car running and releasing carbon monoxide, the trial court also found that the client care agreement established the duties owed.

Drenckpohl v. Barker

253 Ill. App. 3d 203 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 1993

We cannot conclude that Velma Drenckpohl’s retention of possession of the certificates of deposit established her lack of do-native intent. … The evidence must clearly and convincingly show that there was a lack of donative intent at that time. (In re Estate of Eiberger (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 790, 794 , 376 N.E.2d 793, 796 .)

Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Human Rights Commission

173 Ill. App. 3d 965 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 9, 1988

There is no question that Agoot was highly technically qualified for the position of maintenance foreman. Agoot also served for a time as a maintenance foreman shift leader. … A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Burke v. Board of Review (1985), 132 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 1100 , 477 N.E.2d 1351, 1356 .

Jackson v. Village of Caseyville

214 Ill. App. 3d 1058 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 1990

This court finds that plaintiff was qualified as an expert because of his nearly 40 years of farming experience on the lands in question and with the crops grown. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals v. Rice (1985), 138 Ill. … Contrasted with this brief testimony is plaintiff’s exhibit 14, the judgment order on the foreclosure suit that clearly indicates that the interest expense was incurred as a result of the 1977 mortgage note.

Illinois Landscape Contractors Association v. The Department of Labor

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2007

feels that they're more qualified to say what a laborer does." … This is a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, the clearly-erroneous standard of review applies.

Collins v. Roseland Community Hospital

219 Ill. App. 3d 766 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 1991

Specifically, plaintiff maintains that the evidence adduced at trial established that Dr. … Both parties presented the testimony of qualified expert witnesses.

Dings v. Dings

123 Ill. App. 318 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1905

It is a well-established rule that the chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses is better qualified than is an appellate tribunal to judge of the weight to be given to their testimony; and where the evidence of the witnesses … is conflicting the decree will not be disturbed by this court on a question of fact, unless it appears to us that the findings of fact are clearly and palpably wrong.

People v. Zayas

159 Ill. App. 3d 554 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 1987

The court found Braun to be highly qualified in the field and also found the State was not required to establish that hypnosis was a field possessing a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. … However, our supreme court has subsequently determined that Daley does not apply retroactively, nor would the death-qualifying of a jury despite such a proper waiver prejudice a defendant. People v.

People v. Craig

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 2002

Orange , 121 Ill. 2d 364 (1988), out supreme court held that section 115-10.1 is constitutional: "[T]he statute [i]s clearly within the legislature's authority. (See People v. … Also, it is clear that the State did not offer to immunize these two witnesses.

Freeman v. Augustine's Inc.

46 Ill. App. 3d 230 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 2, 1977

More than one employer may be liable for the same injury under the Act and, therefore, immune from common law liability. … In this finding, the trial court was clearly in error.

People v. Evans

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2006

Defendant's claim is based upon two specific grounds: (1) the State failed to establish an adequate foundation for Carter's testimony that defendant kicked or stamped Casey and (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish … "Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel." People v. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d 179, 188, 745 N.E.2d 1194, 1200 (2000).

Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont

284 Ill. App. 3d 848 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 1996

The petitioner must establish: (1) a certain and clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (2) irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) absence of adequate legal remedies, and (4) a likelihood of success on the … All easements are limited and qualified by the use that established the prescriptive right. Peters v. Milks Grove Special Drainage District No. 1, 243 Ill. App. 3d 14, 19 , 610 N.E.2d 1385 (1993).

O'Neill v. Harding

233 Ill. App. 444 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1924

Is it not a more probable presumption that if the legislature had intended to establish such a system of pensions, the legislature would have expressed the idea explicitly! … To arrive at such an intention, it is necessary to import into the statute an idea that is not clearly inferable from the language of the statute.

Dallas v. Granite City Steel Co.

64 Ill. App. 2d 409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1965

It is defendant’s contention that there is no evidence which shows how plaintiff was injured, and that there is no testimony in the record to establish what instrumentality caused plaintiff’s injury. … Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in the manner and words used to inform the jury that plaintiff was not qualified to testify.

State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Martin

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 29, 1996

A comparison of the two complaints and the policy language does not clearly illustrate a lack of coverage. … State Farm argues that while the complaints sound in negli- gence, Martin's involvement in the arson does not qualify as an accident.

Ko v. City of Chicago

2025 IL App (1st) 221788-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2025

Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago that was “clearly marked for bicycle traffic” (a bike lane) which the city “intended to be used by bicycle traffic.” … ¶ 22 Our supreme court has held that the Tort Immunity Act defines the city’s duty. Alave v.

Theofanis v. Sarrafi

339 Ill. App. 3d 460 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2003

The appellate court held that the trust document qualified as a writing on which a claim was founded, but the other documents did not so qualify. … Sarrafi’s notes here are evidence supporting his defense, but they do not qualify as documents upon which the defense is founded.

People v. Barnett

2011 IL App (3d) 90721 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2011

The prosecutor indicated that she objected to any instruction on a lesser included offense and stated the only offense that would qualify as a lesser included offense would be aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/ … However, it is well established that “[t]he waiver rule is one of administrative convenience rather than jurisdiction.” People v. Smith, 106 Ill. 2d 327, 333 (1985).

Steel & Machinery Transportation, Inc. v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

2015 IL App (1st) 133985WC · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 2015

Ramos testified that once an applicant is qualified and executes an independent-contractor agreement, it is respondent’s responsibility to “continuously monitor” the driver’s status. … In my view, the manifest weight of the evidence in this case establishes that the claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee.