Case law

In re A.M.

2013 IL App (3d) 120809 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 2013

App. 3d at 395. ¶ 31 In this case, respondent’s counsel very clearly enunciated the correct standard to be applied by the court. … So the Court will proceed on its hearing to establish guardianship ***.” ¶ 32 The record before us here clearly shows that without first holding an evidentiary hearing as to respondent’s willingness and ability

Lopez v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital

375 Ill. App. 3d 637 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 2007

Socol and Chan met the standard of care for reasonably well-qualified obstetricians and gynecologists in this case. Dr. … A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.

People v. Green

218 Ill. App. 3d 71 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1991

We have interpreted the term “manifest error” to mean error which is clearly evident, plain and indisputable. People v. Sanders, 209 Ill. App. 3d at 373 , 568 N.E.2d at 205 . … As to the deceased’s reputation for carrying a gun, no foundation was shown which qualified Wallace to give reputation testimony on this point.

People v. Fields

466 Ill. Dec. 477 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 20, 2022

And you particularly hear it, overwhelmingly clearly hear it, when the defendant revs the engine. But that happens later. … Moreover, courts “ ‘will not hesitate to read into the sense of some section or provision a qualifying or expanding expression plainly implied by the general context of the act, which has been palpably omitted and which

Fayette County Hospital v. Reavis

169 Ill. App. 3d 246 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1988

Accordingly, the certificate of deposit does not qualify for the exemption set forth in section 12 — 1001(f). … It is well established that an expression of certain exceptions in a statute is construed as an exclusion of all others. (People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 191, 199 , 414 N.E.2d 731, 734 .)

Wesclin Educ. Ass'n v. BD. OF EDUCATION OF WESCLIN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DIST.

30 Ill. App. 3d 67 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 1, 1975

The purported agreement is clearly material since it goes to a substantial matter in dispute, i.e., the existence of a valid subsisting agreement, and since it has a legitimate and an effective influence or bearing on the … A school board is obligated to hire only properly trained, evaluated and qualified teachers.

People v. Crump

319 Ill. App. 3d 538 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 13, 2001

Clearly, a belief is synonymous with an opinion. At trial, defense counsel objected that Collins’ testimony was inadmissible as improper opinion testimony that was a matter for the jury. … In the instant case, the record reflects that Officer Collins was not qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness. Therefore, he was a lay witness.

Home Depot USA v. Department of Revenue

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

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.

Dyback v. Weber

134 Ill. App. 3d 426 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 5, 1985

The expert’s opinion here clearly was based on Schultz’ investigative report and the deposition of one of the defendants. … There was no question presented in that case, however, as to whether the expert was qualified to give such testimony had it not been erroneously disallowed.

People v. Campobello

284 Ill. Dec. 654 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 21, 2004

We reject the Diocese’s attempt to conjure a right to secrecy, and with it immunity from the State’s subpoena power, simply by pointing to the veil it has cast over itself. … The inclusion of “such” is a reincorporation of the preceding definition of “professional character” and “spiritual advisor,” which as we have noted, is qualified by the phrase “in the course of the discipline enjoined by

Libertyville Education Ass'n v. Board of Education

56 Ill. App. 3d 503 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1977

The court held that the contract was unenforceable under the statute then in effect, the “spirit and intent” of which was “clearly repugnant to the idea that one board 000 may, by contracts wholly to be carried out in the … The statute was changed again with the passage of the act establishing tenure for teachers (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, ch. 122, par. 136c), but in Hostrop v.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Rogers

2016 IL App (2d) 150712 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 22, 2016

Clearly, then, the court was referring to one note. … We do not disagree with the Borrowers’ proposition that under the proper circumstances, a mortgage loan modification may stand alone and qualify as a negotiable instrument.

People v. Ligon

365 Ill. App. 3d 109 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2006

While generally, the question of which witnesses to call to testify is a matter of trial strategy that is immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (People v. … A prior burglary committed in an enclosed space or building, or a “generic burglary,” qualified as a violent felony; however, a burglary committed inside a boat or motor vehicle did not.

Zurich Insurance v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

145 Ill. App. 3d 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 27, 1986

We believe that the initial qualifying statement making the insuring agreements “subject to the limits of liability” clearly evinces an intent by the parties to make each of the insuring agreements, including the duty to … Here, the language of the relevant provisions of the policy, taken as a whole, clearly establishes there is no duty to defend after the limits of liability have been properly paid out in judgments or settlements.

People v. Fisher

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 8, 2011

Rather, "abuse of discretion" is associated with such adjectives as "arbitrary" and "clearly illogical." Id. … An abuse of discretion goes outside the range of reasonableness and disregards established principles of law, thereby causing a party substantial prejudice. Id.

Prutton v. Baumgart

2020 IL App (2d) 190346 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 2020

Plaintiff asserts that Kishwaukee could have clearly and unambiguously conveyed Hobson’s independent-contractor status in a consent form but failed to do so. … ¶ 40 Kishwaukee responds that plaintiff has failed to establish any of Gilbert’s requirements.

Phelps v. O'MALLEY

187 Ill. App. 3d 150 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 15, 1989

Though defendant did not make the argument made in this appeal that the trial court exceeded its authority, defendant clearly had an opportunity to make this argument and failed to do so. … App. 3d 683, 689 , rev’d on other grounds (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 267 , the court noted that in its first appellate decision, it recognized the parent-child tort-immunity doctrine as the law in Illinois, but it reversed this

People v. Henney

334 Ill. App. 3d 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 13, 2002

The burden is upon the proponent of the expert’s testimony to establish the qualifications of the expert witness. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d at 104 . … Clearly, after 19 years of such work, Liese possessed knowledge and experience beyond that of a layperson with respect to educational assessments.

In re Estate of Adames

2020 IL App (1st) 190573 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2020

In the event that Kyle’s Trust did not qualify, Tempco would “revert to being taxed as a C Corporation, which may have a significant financial impact on the company and its shareholders.” … - 12 -  Under the Act, “ ‘[a] person establishing a trust may specify in the instrument the rights, powers, duties, limitations and immunities applicable

People v. Reamy

2024 IL App (2d) 240084-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2024

While the children depicted in the materials clearly are victims, there is no evidence that defendant had any contact with them. … That is clearly at odds with the statute's presumption of eligibility for all defendants, and the plain language of article 110 of the Code indicates that more is required.” Id. ¶ 18.