Case law

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 .

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.

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

Brown v. Cook County Forest Preserve

284 Ill. App. 3d 1098 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1996

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Forest Preserve, noting the absolute immunity provided by section 3 — 107(a) and section 3 — 107(b) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity … To the contrary, the record establishes clearly that the area where Brown fell was not the type of developed property that was at issue in Goodwin.

Zdeb v. Baxter International, Inc.

297 Ill. App. 3d 622 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 1998

The marketplace for disposable infusers is well established and profitable. … If Baxter concludes that the complaint establishes a qualified privilege, a denial of the allegation negating justification is all that is required of it.

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.

Neal v. Yang

352 Ill. App. 3d 820 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2004

Because these facts established that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendant had prior notice of the injury or illness, the court was required to find that the Act did not immunize the defendant … in hospitals is not granted such immunity.

Ramirez v. City of Chicago

212 Ill. App. 3d 751 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 5, 1991

The trial court held that, pursuant to section 3 — 102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … In a cause of action based on negligence, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and an injury proximately resulting from a breach of that duty. (Pelham v.

Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings

2014 IL App (1st) 123654 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 7, 2014

provided by the Tort Immunity Act. … The City moved to dismiss both because it was time-barred and because section 2-107 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act immunizes it from liability for libel and slander.

Payne v. City of Chicago

2014 IL App (1st) 123010 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

Section 4-102 of the Act immunizes local public entities and public employees for failure to: (1) establish a police department; (2) otherwise provide police protection; or, if police protection is provided, … This means there is no separate claim stated in count II and that it only added the allegations of willful and wanton conduct to establish the exception from the City’s immunity.

Thomas v. Petrulis

125 Ill. App. 3d 415 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1984

Defendant responds that absolute immunity does attach to the statements in the charge because the EEOC is a quasi-judicial body. We affirm. … A conditional privilege, plaintiff contends, would provide the employer with some redress for clearly malicious defamations.

Alden Nursing Center-Lakeland, Inc. v. Patla

250 Ill. Dec. 907 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 2000

The controller testified that each listed patient qualified for public aid from the Department. He knew this by the coding used on the accounts. … The doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, is not about fairness.

People Ex Rel. Kunce v. Hogan

37 Ill. App. 3d 673 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1976

It is extremely important that we express clearly and unequivocally that the contempt adjudication against Hogan would be reversed even if his advice were incorrect. … Allegedly contemptous behavior which falls within the second category of direct criminal contempt must be established by extrinsic evidence at a fair and impartial hearing. (In re Oliver; People v. Skar.)

People v. Gomez

107 Ill. App. 3d 378 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 1982

Moreover, it is well established that a police report which an identifying officer neither prepared nor signed does not constitute grounds for impeachment. (People v. Spain (1980), 91 Ill. … Immunity will be denied if the proffered testimony is found to be ambiguous, not clearly exculpatory, cumulative or if it is found to relate only to the credibility of the government’s witnesses.

Cleary v. Catholic Diocese

10 Ill. App. 3d 224 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 26, 1973

It was determined that the statutory immunity of the Park District was unconstitutional as a grant of special immunity in violation of the constitutional provision. In Lorton v. … The constitutionality of a statute of limitations of one year is to be examined in the light that the Legislature has established a classification and that the court will not interfere unless such classification is without

Samoylovich v. Montesdeoca

2014 IL App (1st) 121545 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2014

This clearly isn’t the case in this case. *** I would be doing a great disservice to the state of the law to actually grant this motion, and it would be clearly wrong. … To determine whether a lawsuit qualifies as a SLAPP, thus activating the Act’s protective mechanisms, the legislature articulated a test, the first part of which is contained in section 15 of the Act:

Wagner v. Board of Education of North Shore School District 112

2023 IL App (2d) 220277 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

The District argued that it was immune under section 2-109 of the Tort Immunity Act because the actions of Schroeder and the Board were immunized under section 2-208. … The court concluded that “the factual allegations in the complaint do not establish that the [defendant] is immunized” under the Tort Immunity Act. Id.

C.D.L., Inc. v. East Dundee Fire Protection District

252 Ill. App. 3d 835 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 23, 1993

Section 5 — 106 clearly relates to negligent operation, as opposed to the condition, of fire fighting vehicles and/or equipment, which is not at issue here. … To be qualified as an expert, he had to be asked quite extensively about his experiences as a heavy equipment mechanic.

Wilkins v. Williams

968 N.E.2d 1074 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 2012

City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392, 398 (2003)) and well- established rules of statutory construction (People v. Easley, 119 Ill. 2d 535, 539 (1988)). … interpretation is found in the fact that when the legislature wanted to immunize the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, it clearly expressed its intent in the statute.