Case law

Peters v. Herrin Community School District No. 4

401 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2010

In the instant case, plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3 — 102(a) for the School District to protect Gene Peters. … The complaint alleged that the court was in a dangerous condition because it contained trenches that were clearly visible, that the defendant knew or should have known of this condition and that it would cause injury, and

People Ex Rel. Madigan v. EXCAVATING AND LOWBOY SERVICES, INC.

388 Ill. App. 3d 554 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 13, 2009

The void in the terms of the Environmental Act is, however, adequately compensated by the established rules found in the Claims Act and the Immunity Act. … Four well-established criteria guide the granting of injunctive relief: (1) the existence of a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection; (2) that irreparable harm will occur in the absence of the injunction; (3)

Bielema v. River Bend Community School District No. 2

990 N.E.2d 1287 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2013

The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) provides that local government entities like the District are not liable for injuries on public property used for recreational … -4-  statutory definition to exclusively apply in cases involving the Tort Immunity Act.

Carroll v. Community Health Care Clinic, Inc.

2017 IL App (4th) 150847 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 2017

of immunity. … Additionally, the Lease Agreement provided the parties intended the Clinic to operate as a free medical clinic at all times. ¶ 32 Clearly, Dr.

1 v. Board of Education of Lake Forest High School District 115

2024 IL App (2d) 230173 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 30, 2024

For instance, it also immunizes public entities from defamation claims. See 745 ILCS 10/2- 107 (West 2022) (granting immunity “for injury caused by any action of its employees that is libelous or slanderous”). … At this stage in the litigation, we must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint and clearly established by the exhibits to the complaint. Lake Point Tower Condominium Ass’n v.

Grandalski v. Lyons Township High School District 204

305 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1999

N.E.2d at 815 ), the court first explained that “[s]ection 2—202 is not a general exception to all of the other immunities established by the Tort Immunity Act.” … Section 2—201 of the Tort Immunity Act It is well established that the School Code and the Tort Immunity Act are to be interpreted independently of each other. Bowers v.

G. H. Sternberg & Co. v. Bond

30 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 1975

“AN ACT in relation to immunity for the State of Illinois” (Ill. Rev. … It was clearly the intent of plaintiff to enjoin any and all members of State government from taking action on the bond.

Stallman v. Youngquist

152 Ill. App. 3d 683 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1987

Further, a trial court must take as true well-alleged facts in an affidavit, where uncontradicted by a counteraffidavit, despite any contrary averments in an adverse party’s pleadings that merely purport to establish issues … We note that the Michigan Court of Appeals, applying Michigan’s qualified abrogation of parental tort immunity, has held that a child’s mother bears the same liability for negligent conduct, resulting in prenatal injuries

Andras v. Department of Revenue

154 Ill. App. 3d 37 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1987

Two landmark decisions of the Supreme Court established that the constitution necessarily immunizes the Federal government (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L. … In addition, all of the sample agreements clearly set a specific rate of interest.

Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge

374 Ill. App. 3d 743 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2007

Immunity under the Act qualifies as an affirmative matter properly raised in a section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss. Arteman v. … the defendant in that case had established a fire department with emergency services.

Martel Enterprises v. City of Chicago

223 Ill. App. 3d 1028 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 15, 1991

The city also contends Martel was required to establish that the fireworks were legal as element of conversion. … The city did not establish that it was substantially prejudiced from the instruction.

People v. Dimond

54 Ill. App. 3d 146 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 1977

In cross-examination, defense counsel was allowed to establish that Ferrin had been charged with the same offense for which defendant was on trial. … In view of the record of guilt in this case and the fact that Ferrin was clearly shown to have been offered immunity in his testimony, the limitation of the cross examination of Ferrin, in any event, would not justify a reversal

Israel S. by Owens v. BD. OF EDUC.

235 Ill. App. 3d 652 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 1992

who is qualified to provide information regarding parental incapacity or extreme hardship.” … She established her blood relationship with the plaintiff.

Lilly v. MARCAL ROPE AND RIGGING INC.

289 Ill. App. 3d 1105 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 14, 1997

immune from suit in tort by its employees. … Since the relative culpabilities of the multiple defendants were rarely so clearly delineated, indemnification was not really a satisfactory tool.

Hernandez v. Kirksey

306 Ill. App. 3d 912 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1999

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 … City of Chicago, 238 Ill.App.3d 639, 642 , 179 Ill.Dec. 441 , 606 N.E.2d 273 (1992) ("reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented.")

Nourse v. The City of Chicago

2017 IL App (1st) 160664 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 2017

Sections 2-105 and 2-207 would thus appear to clearly protect the City from suit for Mr. … The City thus met its initial burden of establishing that the immunity provisions of sections 2-105 and 2-207 applied. ¶ 33 In response, plaintiffs presented no evidentiary support to refute a conclusion

Ostergren v. Forest Preserve District

118 Ill. App. 3d 319 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 19, 1983

Immunity is granted in the former subcategory. … The new statute was held to be clearly within the police power of the State and not violative of constitutional guarantees. Perozzi v. Ganiere (1935), 149 Or. 330 , 40 P.2d 1009 .

Christiansen v. Masse

279 Ill. App. 3d 162 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 1996

The Court of Claims Act establishes a Court of Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine, inter alia, "[a]ll claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort, if a like cause of action would … Finally, plaintiff’s statement that "it has been repeatedly held in Illinois that a police officer who is transporting a prisoner is not enforcing or executing any law, so as to qualify for immunity” is misleading.

Hicks v. Board of Education for School District 189

77 Ill. App. 3d 974 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 11, 1979

Moreover, section 2 — 102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … Stat. 1977, ch. 85, par. 2 — 102) specifically immunizes local public entities, here the school district, from liability for the payment of punitive or exemplary damages.

Lanphier v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp.

327 Ill. App. 3d 801 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 21, 2002

Once a borrowed employment relationship exists, both employers share immunity for tort damages for an employee’s work-related injuries and the employee’s exclusive remedy is under the Act. … The court determined that the purpose of defining “loaning employer” in the Workers’ Compensation Act was to establish the secondary liability of the loaning employer and to reheve the employee from having to establish the