Case law

Moran v. Illinois Civil Service Commission

120 Ill. App. 3d 884 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1983

Plaintiff’s signature appeared at the bottom of the immunity agreement. … In this case, the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff testified falsely before the Federal grand jury.

Doe v. Illinois Masonic Medical Center

297 Ill. App. 3d 240 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 1998

Furthermore, that federal law mandates the establishment of an IRB in this experimental type of medical study does not negate the IRB’s status as a hospital committee. … The IRB here qualifies as the type of committee covered by the Act.

Glover v. City of Chicago

106 Ill. App. 3d 1066 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 1982

Pursuant to section 2 — 202 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. Rev. … Clearly, the defendant officers were executing or enforcing a law at the time the decedent was injured.

Lakeside Condominium "C" Ass'n v. Frediani Developers, Inc.

135 Ill. App. 3d 972 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 22, 1985

Finally, Lakeside alleged that by virtue of the purchase of insurance the village had waived all immunities granted to it under section 2 — 105 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (see Ill … Since this cause was decided on the basis of a failure to establish a common law duty and not on the issue of immunity, the plaintiff’s contention that the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act is

Griffin v. Willoughby

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2006

Plaintiff's position is clearly based on Currie v. … Paszkowski clearly establishes that section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act applies to plaintiff's action.

Davis v. Grinspoon

212 Ill. App. 3d 282 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 22, 1991

Rather it deals with spousal immunity. Conversely, in Meece v. Holland Furnace Co. (1933), 269 Ill. … Plaintiff further argues that the doctrine should not apply in a suit brought against the parent’s employer, because the public policy considerations which led to the establishment of the subject doctrine do not apply in

Green v. Chicago Board of Education

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 2011

Section 4-102 of the Act states, in relevant part: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police … Section 4-102 of the Act does not contain the same qualifying language as section 3-108 of the Act.

Smith-Silk v. Prenzler

2013 IL App (5th) 120546 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2013

Clair County defendants filed a motion to dismiss in which they argued they were immune from prosecution pursuant to section 2-203 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity … site custody exchange fund fee as established by the county ordinance.

Jackson v. Chicago Firefighters Union

160 Ill. App. 3d 975 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1987

Just as article IV of the Tort Immunity Act specifically provides immunity to police personnel, article V of the Act specifically provides immunity to fire fighters for the “failure to establish a fire department or *** to … Clearly, the defendants at bar were not responsible for the fire to the Ridgeway premises. Instead, similar to the situations in Galuszynski and Marvin, plaintiffs at bar merely sought protection which was not provided.

Goodwin v. McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission

250 Ill. Dec. 420 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2000

The trial court initially granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that it was time-barred under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS … Additionally, they were not approved or otherwise qualified by the Merit Commission and so do not qualify for the positions of merited deputy.

Boub v. Township of Wayne

291 Ill. App. 3d 713 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 1997

Illinois case law has clearly established that, under section 3—102(a) of the Act, vehicles, as defined by the Vehicle Code, are intended users of public streets, roadways, and highways and that, with narrow exceptions, pedestrians … Recognizing that the legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries that occur as a result of unintended uses of roadways, our supreme court has

DiFoggio v. County of Will Division of Transportation

257 N.E.3d 608 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2024

¶ 14 If a plaintiff cannot establish an element of his cause of action, summary judgment for the defendant is proper. Id. … Therefore, while Gieske has personal knowledge about what constitutes construction, he is not qualified to testify about what constitutes maintenance. See Kim v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc., 353 Ill.

People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 10, 2001

Although on its face the immunity in section 2--201 would apply to alleged constitutional violations because such violations meet the definition of "injury" in section 1--204, the title of the Tort Immunity Act clearly indicates … The Diocese's last argument is that the trial court erred in dismissing its nuisance claim because the City did not establish the elements of local governmental discretionary immunity under the Tort Immunity Act.

Village of Lake in the Hills v. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.

160 Ill. App. 3d 427 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 1987

In none of those cases, however, was the issue of sovereign immunity from injunction damages raised or discussed. No precedent is established on points neither argued nor discussed in an opinion (Sanner v. … The language of section 2 — 208 of the Immunity Act, in conjunction with the language of section 2 — 109, clearly shields the villages from liability for institution of litigation, and we see no reason to exclude the seeking

Mueller v. Community Consolidated School District 54

287 Ill. App. 3d 337 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 1997

Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act). 745 ILCS 10/2—103, 2—104, 2—109, 2—201 (West 1994). … to dismiss established that the asserted defense is unfounded.

Richter v. College of Du Page

2013 IL App (2d) 130095 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2014

So it was an overall policy that [Kornsey] established, and then he had to make the discretionary decision as to this particular slab.” … The court determined that the city was not entitled to discretionary immunity under section 2-201 because: (1) the city had established a program of annually regrading all its unimproved alleys, which merely

Eagan v. Chicago Transit Authority

240 Ill. App. 3d 784 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 1992

Section 4 — 102 of the Act reads: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service … Thus, plaintiff’s complaint clearly meets requirements (1) and (2) above, since it alleges that defendant was both aware of the danger and failed to respond to it.

Higgins v. Board of Education

101 Ill. App. 3d 1003 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1981

Rather, two established teaching positions, one in French and one in English communications, were filled by nontenured teachers. The appellant was qualified to fill neither of these established positions. … That is clearly the law, but tenured teachers do not have the right to object to the incidental assignment of a single course to established teaching positions which they are unqualified to teach, thereby fractionalizing

Betts v. Department of Revenue

78 Ill. App. 3d 102 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 1979

As such it is barred by sovereign immunity and was properly dismissed. II. … This extraordinary remedy will be granted only when the right to it is clearly established. (Parsons v. Walker (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 517 , 328 N.E.2d 920 .)

Wendt v. Fathers

332 Ill. App. 618 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 1947

Clearly, charitable corporations should, as do private corporations, bear the cost of their tortious acts, and the rule of tort immunity which leaves an undeserved loss on an unfortunate individual should be abolished. ’ … The trend in these latter States is clearly toward unqualified responsibility. Justice Eobihsoh, concurring in Miller v. Sisters of St.