Case law

People v. Rucker

280 Ill. Dec. 801 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 2, 2004

That forensic chemist Gwendolyn Brister is employed by the Chicago— Illinois State Police and is qualified to testify as an expert in the area of forensic chemistry. … Rule 606 clearly states that when a timely posttrial or postsentencing motion has been filed by "counsel or by defendant, if not represented by counsel, any notice of appeal filed before entry of the order * * * shall have

Affordable Housing Preservation Foundation v. Wiiams

375 Ill. App. 3d 305 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 2007

It therefore could not qualify as any kind of motion, much less a posttrial motion under section 2 — 1203. … The court’s discussion of the specificity requirements should therefore not be construed as establishing a rule that is controlling where, as here, the postjudgment motion does attack the circuit court’s judgment and does

Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. Van Straaten Gallery, Inc.

301 Ill. App. 3d 336 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 1998

One established example of waiver involves litigation between the attorney and client. … There are emerging, in the Federal decisional law, certain exceptions to ‘absolute immunity’ of opinion work product.

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.

People v. Coulter

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

The majority notes that this was "not the primary consideration" at the third stage of the Batson procedure, but the Seventh Cir­cuit's opinion clearly establishes that it was to be a considera­tion. … After all, a prosecutor's discriminatory act is not "'immunized by the absence of such discrimi­na­tion in the making of other comparable decisions.'" Batson , 476 U.S. at 95 , 90 L. Ed. 2d at 87 , 106 S.

People v. Simester

287 Ill. App. 3d 420 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 27, 1997

The evidence established that the defendants were the victim’s caregivers as contemplated by the statute. … A trial court’s determination of whether a witness has been properly qualified as an expert will not be overturned upon appeal unless it was an abuse of discretion. People v. Free, 94 Ill. 2d 378, 410 (1983) .

Rinchich v. Village of Bridgeview

235 Ill. App. 3d 614 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 1992

Defendants maintain that “the totality of the record clearly refutes [Rinchich’s] conclusions and supports the findings of the trial court.” … of the duties of the position is sufficient to establish the existence of the position.

People v. Whitaker

249 N.E.3d 495 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 29, 2024

the defendant has committed a qualifying offense (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)), (2) that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community … There is a well-established principle: ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.

Sandler v. Sweet

2017 IL App (1st) 163313 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2017

¶ 17 As discussed above, the Illinois Supreme Court has clearly stated that a plaintiff cannot maintain a medical negligence cause of action absent a direct physician-patient relationship with the defendant unless a … Indeed, our supreme court reaffirmed the “long- established principles in Kirk and Doe” and declined to expand the scope of the physician-patient relationship to nonpatient third parties. See Tedrick v.

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.'

Three Angels Broadcasting Network v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2008

The ALJ concluded that the vast majority of the property at issue did not qualify for a religious-use or charitable-use property tax exemption. … Accordingly, we will only reverse the decision of the Department to deny the exemptions if that decision was clearly erroneous.

Klekamp v. City of Burbank

203 Ill. Dec. 202 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 1994

In June 1993 the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Burbank, reasoning that plaintiffs were clearly hired as firefighters and were paid accordingly. … Plaintiffs’ request to recover compensation based on a salary schedule established for a job classification for which they were not hired is precluded by the prior appropriation rule established in the Illinois Municipal

People v. Keen

206 Ill. App. 3d 940 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 30, 1990

Defendant is, in effect, asking this court to assume a fact that has not been established. … Kawoleski (1924), 313 Ill. 257 , 145 N.E. 203 , which is clearly distinguishable.

City of Rockford v. Pollution Control Board

125 Ill. App. 3d 384 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1984

ecologically sound regional pollution control facilities to ease the recognized difficulty of disposing of refuse and to establish a unified statewide program for environmental protection. … The manifest weight of the evidence indicates that a contrary result from that reached by Rockford is clearly evident. (See Jenkins v. Universities Civil Service Merit Board (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 215, 219 .)

Hancock v. Village of Itasca

2016 IL App (2d) 150677 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 5, 2016

This demonstrates clearly, that in those situations, his hand is not able to perform at a level necessary to protect himself. This had not been evident prior to this time. … It is well established that “we review the trial court’s judgment, not its reasoning, and we may affirm on any grounds in the record, regardless of whether the trial court relied on those grounds or whether

Englewood Hospital Ass'n v. Knox

49 Ill. App. 3d 515 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 1977

Clearly, the wages or earned income of a recipient are not within the money payments made by IDPA pursuant to article IV. … Thus, it was her initial burden in the trial court to establish that IDPA was required to increase her assistance when the wage deduction was made.

People v. Hall

352 Ill. App. 3d 537 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 3, 2004

There is no doubt that defendant's conduct in the instant case clearly falls within the statutory proscription. … We add here as further support for our conclusion our recognition that the statute at issue ensures that only appropriately qualified personnel are to perform the DNA extractions, they must be performed in a medically approved

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

Franklin v. Industrial Commission

341 Ill. App. 3d 128 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 2003

One Commissioner dissented, arguing that the majority's conclusion that both parties were aggressors was not based on established law. … The Commission clearly concluded that "[Claimant] and Mohan were in fact equal participants in the altercation[,] marking them both as the aggressor."

Housing Authority of the County of Lake v. Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals

2017 IL App (2d) 160959 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2017

and law, and the standard of review is “clearly erroneous.” … However, the Director determined that the project qualified as “government use (no assembly space),” and this is the decision the Board reviewed.