Case law

Rochester Buckhart Action Group v. Young

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 14, 2008

"To establish entitlement to a prelimi- nary injunctive relief, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a clearly ascertainable right that needs protection; (2) irreparable harm … The notice and processing requirements differ greatly depending on whether the proposed construction qualifies as a "new" facility.

Yankey v. Oscar Bohlin & Son, Inc.

37 Ill. App. 2d 457 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 29, 1962

The jury verdict should not be set aside unless manifestly against and contrary to the weight of the evidence or, as sometimes stated, an opposite conclusion is clearly indicated. Cardona v. … None of these cases support Bohlin’s contention that it is immune from liability under the Scaffold Act. In Martin the Scaffold Act was not involved.

Grassroots Collaborative v. City of Chicago

2020 IL App (1st) 192099 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2020

Even accepting these allegations as true, as we must, we do not believe that they establish plaintiffs’ standing under the holding of Havens. … I think this statement clearly constitutes a request for leave to amend if the trial court concluded (as it did) that the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint - 23 - No.

People v. Wilke

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 15, 2006

The judge qualified him as an expert in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and, over a defense objection, in methamphetamine generally. … DISCUSSION To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must establish two things: first, that defense counsel=s performance was objectively deficient (i.e., he made errors so serious that he was not functioning

People v. Andricopulos

162 Ill. App. 3d 899 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 2, 1987

With respect to defendant’s charge of physical abuse, only his girlfriend and he testified to his having welts on his face, which was clearly rebutted by the photograph taken of him during the police’s processing procedure … Here, defendant first argues that the residential burglary charge, which prompted his revocation of probation hearing, did not qualify as “other criminal proceedings” barring placement or consideration under the Act.

People v. Jamesson

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 2002

Schecht added that he had been qualified to testify in court as a gang expert on 15 to 20 prior occasions. … Inasmuch as defendant is the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute, he bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional violation. See Wright , 194 Ill. 2d at 24 ; People v. DePalma , 256 Ill.

Giampa v. Illinois Civil Service Commission

89 Ill. App. 3d 606 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1980

The second charge, set out above, was found by the circuit court to establish a basis for plaintiff's discharge. … is required to supplant the privilege' and may not be required to `waive such immunity.'

Peterson v. Superior Bank FSB

242 Ill. App. 3d 1090 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 1993

“Parties who execute a contract containing a valid arbitration clause are irrevocably committed to arbitrate all disputes clearly arising under the agreement.” TDE Ltd. v. Israel (1989), 185 Ill. … Similarly, a written document qualifies as ‘other evidence of indebtedness’ under section 13 — 206 only when one need not resort to parol evidence to establish the vital elements of the agreement.” Toth, 207 Ill.

Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.

313 Ill. App. 3d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 10, 2000

Therefore, the Harris court did not view its decision as a change from established Illinois evidentiary law. … In concluding that the testimony of Ferebee’s experts was properly admitted, the appellate court stated: “[A] cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor

Curt Bullock Builders, Inc. v. H.S.S. Development, Inc.

225 Ill. App. 3d 9 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 16, 1992

The parties agree that plaintiff had other access to University Avenue but this access was clearly more circuitous. … Evidence also showed that the facade shielded the view of plaintiff’s establishment from University Avenue.

Barr v. Cunningham

2016 IL App (1st) 150437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 7, 2016

" ¶ 12 Following the conclusion of Barr's case-in-chief, defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence conclusively established that Cunningham was immune from liability under the Act and that … verdict on the basis of discretionary immunity

Department of Business & Economic Development v. Baumann

9 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 21, 1972

They now allege that this exhibit clearly demonstrates that the Ward transaction was an exchange. … The question of whether a witness is qualified to testify rests within the discretion of the trial judge. Trustees of Schools v. Schroeder, 23 Ill.2d 74, 78 (1961).

Woods v. Village of La Grange Park

299 Ill. App. 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 14, 1939

The evidence clearly establishes that on January 8, 1923, plaintiff was appointed to the office of village attorney by the president of the village with the advice and consent of the board of trustees; that on January 15,1923 … Obviously the court was speaking about the procedure if the existence of the ordinance was not established.

People v. Partin

468 Ill. Dec. 722 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 2022

“Findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence when they are unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence or when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id. … There was no evidence that the police were aware that defendant called Nicole, much less that she was qualified to remove the truck.

Suburban Construction Co. v. Naugle

70 Ill. App. 384 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 15, 1897

Wagner, but without the same distinguishing features, and is a case clearly in conflict with the majority of English and American decisions. … That this case is clearly in support of appellee’s contention, and quite irreconcilable with the authorities above cited, is beyond dispute.

Gayan v. Illinois Department of Human Services

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2003

A case that involves an examination of the legal effect of a set of given facts is a question of mixed law and fact, and should not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Belvidere v. … Section 1396p added strict criteria regarding the treatment of Medicaid Qualified Trusts such as the inclusion of the corpus and proceeds of various irrevocable trusts as countable resources.

Gilbert v. Frank

233 Ill. App. 3d 372 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 28, 1992

First, I agree with the plaintiff that an issue of material fact exists because the consent form formulated by the hospital clearly states that the physician is an employee of the hospital. … To immunize the hospital under the alleged facts herein is taking a step backwards, in my mind, rather than taking a step at all in allowing an individual or entity to escape liability for its own “misrepresentations” of

Hernandez v. Chicago Park Dist.

211 Ill. Dec. 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 6, 1995

The standard to be employed by this court in assessing the propriety of a denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is well-established. … The evidence clearly demonstrates that the park district actually created the danger at issue in this case and thus it is absolutely incredible to claim lack of constructive notice as a defense. See Harding v.

People v. Learn

396 Ill. App. 3d 891 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 4, 2009

Other than establishing the fact that K.O. had a “Tio Jimmy,” defense counsel asked a total of five questions about defendant. … Mere presence and general testimony are insufficient to qualify as the appearance and testimony of a witness.

People v. Morris

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 1998

Officer Les Higgins then testified that he conducted the breathalyzer test administered to defendant and that he was qualified to operate the machine on the date of testing. … He contends that .011 is clearly greater than the .01 margin of error allowed by the regulation so the trial court's ruling must be affirmed.