Case law

People v. Panus

62 Ill. App. 3d 177 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 1978

The error of such an argument is that it presumes identification and ownership by Garmer can be and has been established in the first place. … For the reasons stated we believe the trial court committed reversible error, which clearly prejudiced defendant’s case, in admitting the Sears roto tiller into evidence.

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.

People v. Nixon

278 Ill. App. 3d 453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 18, 1996

The court noted that, generally, a chemist is qualified to render an opinion as to the entire amount seized even if only random samples were tested. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d at 409 , 657 N.E.2d at 1027 . … Accordingly, we find the evidence clearly supports the street value fine of $600. Cf. People v. Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d 282, 287 , 635 N.E.2d 1073, 1076 (1994); People v. Tyson, 221 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. Hood

343 Ill. App. 3d 1245 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 3, 2003

Hindman to be qualified as an expert toxicologist. … Expert Qualifications Defendant argues the State failed to establish Dr. Hindman as an expert on reverse extrapolation. We find defendant has forfeited this argument on appeal.

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.

People v. Davis

19 Ill. App. 3d 709 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1974

The judge’s decision to accept Dodd’s testimony must be upheld unless it can be said to be clearly unreasonable. (People v. Haskell (1968), 41 Ill.2d 25 , 241 N.E.2d 430 .) … This incriminating evidence, plus the victim’s unshakable identification, established the defendant’s guilt beyond aH reasonable doubt.

Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 2000

Lawson stated that he advertised for a full- or part-time helper and hired a few, but had to fire them because they were not sufficiently qualified. … As such, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a clearly erroneous standard of review applied.

People v. Kinsloe

281 Ill. App. 3d 799 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 1996

However, "[ujnless a prior inconsistent statement clearly qualifies under section 115 — 10.1, it is not admissible as substantive evidence.” People v. Salgado, 263 Ill. App. 3d 238, 248 , 635 N.E.2d 1367 (1994). … Under the circumstances, we find Laverne’s trial testimony unpersuasive to establish guilt.

Hanson v. Cresco Lines, Inc.

57 Ill. App. 3d 168 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 17, 1978

Gary Marietta, a qualified engineer, testified that he was in charge of enforcing the contract specifications and assuring that traffic control devices were properly in place. … In a situation of this type, “the facts of the case must clearly justify indemnification.” (Carver v. Grossman (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 507, 512 , 305 N.E.2d 161 .)

Meyers v. Woods

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 2007

If defendant had asked, he would not have been qualified to answer as he was not familiar enough with installing in- floor heating systems. … We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by qualifying them as experts.

United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n

50 N.E.3d 661 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 2016

The Commission determined that the supreme court's analysis in Venture-Newberg applied to the facts of the present case and that the analysis established that the claimant did not qualify as a traveling employee at the … "In order for a finding to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent." Id. at 278, 711 N.E.2d at 1132.

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

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.

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.

Lewis v. Illinois Central Railroad

234 Ill. App. 3d 669 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 1992

The evidence established, however, that the forklift was electric and used no such heavy oil. … No abuse of discretion was established here.

Griffin v. Subram

238 Ill. App. 3d 712 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 1992

The exhibit was clearly a “paper read *** in evidence” and, consequently he suggests, it was within the circuit court’s discretion to permit the exhibit to go to the jury room during deliberations. … It is also improper for a party, during examination of an adverse witness, to endeavor to elicit evidence which goes to establish his own case. (Suich v. H. & B. Printing Machinery, Inc. (1989), 185 Ill.

Village of Bridgeview v. Strickland

139 Ill. App. 3d 744 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1985

The last witness called by the objectors was Thomas Holcer, a real estate appraiser qualified and accepted as an expert witness. … The record before us clearly reflects the intent of the trial court, in ruling on the motion in limine, to allow general economic and demographic data to be presented.

Belmont Fire Protection District v. Village of Downers Grove

92 Ill. App. 3d 682 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 14, 1981

Recognizing that the present case does not fall within the traditional definitions of contiguity, the village argues that noncontiguity is not established by the mere absence of physical touching, relying on People ex rel … The village’s reliance on the above cases is misplaced, since those cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at hand.

People v. Johnson

134 Ill. App. 3d 365 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 1985

The parents were ordered to establish and maintain regular visitation and cooperate with the guardian. … Respondent contends that since the court had not been asked to take notice of any studies, and did not provide any information regarding those referred to, the studies did not qualify for judicial notice, and the court abused