Case law

City of Park Ridge v. Clarendon American Insurance Co.

2017 IL App (1st) 170453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2017

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/6-105, 6-106(a) (West 2004)) and remanded the case for further proceedings. … At trial, Park Ridge was ensnared by its earlier defense that it was entitled to immunity under the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/6- 105, 6-106 (West 2004)) because it had “provided no medical care of any kind, including

Anderson v. Chicago Transit Authority

2019 IL App (1st) 181564 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 8, 2019

Yet, as the parties’ arguments reveal, exactly when a person becomes or ceases to become a passenger on a common carrier is not clearly defined under the law and depends on varying circumstances. … Plaintiff therefore failed to establish a legal duty.

People v. Unander

404 Ill. App. 3d 884 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 28, 2010

The State argues Evangelista is distinguishable from this case because the evidence clearly established the defendant there had previously provided a DNA sample. See Evangelista, 393 Ill. … All such fees collected shall be deposited by the county in a fund to be established and known as the Arrestee’s Medical Costs Fund [(Fund)].

M & W GEAR CO. v. AW Dynamometer, Inc.

97 Ill. App. 3d 904 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 17, 1981

Unless proof of an inferential character is permitted, the results would be to immunize a defendant from the consequences of his wrongful act. (Vendo Co. v. … Clearly, the court in Podlaski was not setting down a rule whereby testimony of an interested witness as to lost profits must be totally disregarded.

Sullivan v. Power Construction, Inc.

108 Ill. App. 3d 653 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 1982

Irsay moved to dismiss counts II and III based upon its argument that Power failed to plead facts establishing a qualitative distinction between Power’s conduct and that of Irsay and Mansfield. … Consequently, any future suits instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants would be clearly barred under the principles of res judicata. Brainerd v. First Lake County National Bank (1971), 1 Ill.

People v. Canizalez-Cardena

979 N.E.2d 1014 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 2012

“It is apparent they were acting as couriers and clearly knew they were transporting that car and then switching it out for drugs to come back to whatever place was going to be the delivery point. … It is well established that a factor inherent in the offense should not be considered as a factor in aggravation at sentencing.

People v. McVeay

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 1999

Our legislature has provided definitions for both classifications of individuals with clearly distinct criteria, and indeed, our legislature is vested with the authority to provide such definitions. See People v. … Inasmuch as defendant is the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute, he bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional violation. See People v. DePalma , 256 Ill. App. 3d 206, 210 (1994).

People v. Briddle

84 Ill. App. 3d 523 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 1980

When considered in light of the foregoing standard, the testimony in question in the present case clearly did influence the trial judge. This court held in People v. Daley (1977), 48 Ill. … Yet we should not encourage prevarication by saying that necessarily such a defendant is immune from prosecution for perjury.” ( 447 F.2d 1382, 1387 .)

In re Nicholas L.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 16, 2011

Although qualified by his opinion as to why respondent had the capacity, Dr. Cullinane’s testimony was that respondent had the capacity. Moreover, Dr. … The Code prohibits the involuntarily administration of psychotropic medication unless the State clearly and convincingly establishes that, inter alia, the respondent lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision for him

Fedanzo v. City of Chicago Modified upon denial of rehearing. Replaces opinion originally filed May 24, 2002.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 2, 2002

We note that plaintiff makes a constitutional challenge to the residency requirement, claiming it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution. … The hearing officer's determination that plaintiff was not threatened but was merely read his administrative rights was not clearly erroneous.

Koch v. Pearson

219 Ill. App. 468 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 1920

But clearly his minutes taken at the time, and which he swore were correct, were much less liable to err than any recollection he might have could possibly be. … It was there held that this rule applied to a mere private memorandum, for, as the court said: “There is no good reason for not so extending it, where the competency of the witness is clearly established by his positive testimony

Ford v. Grizzle

398 Ill. App. 3d 639 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 2010

Dentella stated that the plaintiff’s medical records clearly showed that he had chronic neck problems years before the July 2002 accident. Dr. … An expert’s opinion is admissible if the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a reliable field and if the testimony would aid the jury in understanding the evidence.

Lee v. Godinez

2014 IL App (3d) 130677 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2014

counsel was properly allowed to withdraw from the appeal pursuant to Anders and plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, since the “perks” plaintiff claimed he was denied were clearly … Specifically, the petition alleged only that he qualified for consideration of good-time credit against his sentence, which could be granted or denied at the Director’s discretion. Helm, 308 Ill.

People v. Duff

374 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2007

Because a codefendant’s confession is clearly considered “testimonial,” we find a codefendant’s guilty plea should also be considered “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford. … Contrary to the State’s contention, the codefendant’s guilty plea was clearly admitted to establish the truth of the matter asserted, namely, that the codefendant had admitted guilt to the same crime defendant was charged

People v. Hoke

213 Ill. App. 3d 263 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 9, 1991

Other evidence established that the tests were performed by the hospital’s laboratory. … Clearly if the statement here had been made while the State could still put on evidence, and if the existence of the statement was not deemed evidence, the State could have put the matter before the jury by the testimony

City of Park Ridge v. Clarendon American Insurance Co.

2017 IL App (1st) 170453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 2017

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/6-105, 6-106(a) (West 2004)) and remanded the case for further proceedings. … At trial, Park Ridge was ensnared by its earlier defense that it was entitled to immunity under the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/6­ 105, 6-106 (West 2004)) because it had “provided no medical care of any kind, including

People v. Walker

2 Ill. App. 3d 1026 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1971

United States, 394 U.S. 165 , the United States Supreme Court held at page 173: "The rule is '* * * to qualify as a "person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure" one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, … To warrant a reversal because of the incompetence of court appointed counsel, it must clearly appear not only that counsel performed his trial duties in an incompetent manner, but also that defendant was prejudiced thereby

Buckley v. Coyne Electrical School, Inc.

343 Ill. App. 420 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 1951

The record establishes the following essential facts out of which this controversy arose: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, doing business as F. J. … (3) Does the evidence clearly bring plaintiffs within the exception in regulation 9001? We shall discuss these questions in the order stated.

People v. Munoz

398 Ill. App. 3d 455 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2010

Shaku Teas was next qualified as an expert in forensic pathology and testified on behalf of the defendant. Dr. … The only possible relevancy would be to establish motive on part of the defendant to kill her.

People v. LeFlore

996 N.E.2d 678 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 2013

The lack of a proper admonishment was clearly raised. … As a revoked driver, defendant clearly had no legitimate expectation of privacy in Powell’s vehicle or its movements.