Case law

Farwell Construction Co. v. Ticktin

84 Ill. App. 3d 791 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 1980

We disagree, as we believe that our construction clearly gives effect to both paragraphs. … While a contract for the sale of realty qualifies as an “instrument of writing” under the statute (Vandercook v. Mayer (1938), 297 Ill.

Robinson v. Tellabs, Inc.

391 Ill. App. 3d 60 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 2009

While the Hurley court may have engaged in an overstatement when it noted that “under no circumstances can an amount established for one pay period only qualify as salary under the ‘regularly received each pay period’ standard … Based on this policy established in the Oregon State Police Manual, it necessarily followed that the employees were not overtime-exempt.

Blount v. Stroud

376 Ill. App. 3d 935 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 28, 2007

This is the converse of the scenario in Howlett, in which the Supreme Court held that the State of Florida could not apply sovereign immunity to section 1983 claims where it did not apply sovereign immunity to similar state … Rather, the administrative schemes in question provided special procedures when the government was the defendant, which evinced that the purpose of those administrative schemes was clearly to shield the government from being

Johnson v. Matrix Financial Services Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 9, 2004

Each part shall also clearly show the points or grounds relied upon under the Section upon which it is based." 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2002). … While this "unreasonableness" determination may indeed be "fact intensive," plaintiffs still must allege sufficient facts to establish each element under RESPA's antikickback provision.

Mallec v. The City of Belleville, Illinois

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2008

"It is established that a taxpayer can enjoin the misuse of public funds, based upon taxpayers' ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency caused by misappropriation … The distinction between misappropriation of funds out of the general revenue and out of such trust fund is clearly set out in our decisions.

Kennedy v. Four Boys Labor Service, Inc.

276 Ill. App. 3d 248 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 1995

Plaintiff’s responsibilities included establishing new accounts, necessitating "cold calling” to find new clients. Plaintiff did 90% of his work by the telephone. … To prevail on a claim for retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff must prove that she was discharged in violation of a clearly mandated public policy.

People v. Grampsas

2026 IL App (4th) 241205-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 2, 2026

Importantly, despite the State’s musings about withdrawing the immunity order, the State took no action to do so, the court’s immunity order remained in effect, and Harris never attempted to assert a privilege. … of a witness does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.”

Kildeer-Countryside School District No. 96 v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System

362 Ill. Dec. 253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 3, 2012

Fourth District Docket No. 4-11-0843 Filed August 3, 2012 Held Where the undisputed facts established that a teacher in plaintiff district (Note: This … (The recommended decision stated an expiration date of June 30, 2008, which is clearly incorrect as the last school year covered was 2005-06.)

Gonzalzles v. American Express Credit Corp.

315 Ill. App. 3d 199 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2000

A cause of action will not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that will entitle it to relief. Vernon, 179 Ill. 2d at 344 . … When the relationship between the parties is not one that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship as a matter of law, the party asserting the existence of the relationship has the burden of establishing such by clear and convincing

People v. Jordan

247 Ill. App. 3d 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 25, 1993

Thus, he has failed to establish actual prejudice resulting from his counsel’s mistake. … The case defendant cites as authority for his position is clearly inappropriate. In People v.

Stratford Aire Ass'n v. Hibser

26 Ill. App. 2d 214 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 1960

Thereafter the board met and corrected the minutes of the former meeting to show that the motion to reconsider had been made and seconded by supervisors qualified under the board’s rules of procedure to make and second the … While the entire proceedings were conducted on contemplated usage for a gasoline service station, the restrictions prescribed are clearly applicable irrespective of the use made of the property.

Krohe v. City of Bloomington

329 Ill. App. 3d 1133 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2002

The legislative branch of government is responsible for making public policy, and the judiciary should give effect to enactments by the legislature establishing public policy. … Here, there is no challenge of constitutional infirmity, and our deference to the clearly expressed will of the legislature is required.

Moore v. Bellamy

183 Ill. App. 3d 110 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 1989

These factors were present in the instant case, and the statement qualifies under the exception. … It clearly appears the declarant personally observed the accident, but it is the declarant’s existence and observation which is challenged here.

Roberts v. Weimer

130 Ill. App. 297 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 27, 1906

On March 18, 1903, upon petition of the widow, appellant was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of said estate. … Even though appellant may have intended to and did act in the utmost good faith, the strict rule quoted, thrust upon him the burden of establishing clearly that he had done so.

Weiland v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 1998

Like Justice Stevens, I do not believe that Congress “clearly signaled its intent to deprive States of any role in protecting consumers from the dangers inherent in many medical devices.” … Because these state requirements are clearly of "general applicability," and not "specifically developed 'with respect to' medical devices," they do not fall within the purview of section 360k.

Ohlicher v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago

2024 IL App (1st) 231699-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2024

It was determined that Ohlicher was not qualified to return to duty without restrictions and that based on restrictions per the treating physician, he was not a candidate for limited duty. … Houseknecht’s report, Ohlicher was “NOT QUALIFIED to return to duty without restrictions. Based on restrictions per treating physician, member is not a candidate for Limited Duty.”

People v. Crowder

161 Ill. App. 3d 1009 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1987

Clearly this information was brought out and thus we find no prejudice. … That the State is constitutionally prohibited from discriminating against women because of their sex in the jury venire selection process is clearly established.

Filskov v. Board of Trustees of the Northlake Police Pension Fund

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 5, 2011

The facts of this case establish that Officer No.1-09-3151 Filskov did not suffer a line-of-duty disability. … Using the Board’s logic, any police officer who suffers an injury while on duty, performing a specific act of police work, would never qualify for line of duty disability benefits if the injury is of a category that could

Van Hattem v. Kmart Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1999

that a proper chain of custody could not be established. … Kmart also asserts that "every person" in contact with those pills must testify and, since Ernest was clearly unable to testify as to the condition of the pills, they were inadmissible.

Davis v. Marathon Oil Co.

28 Ill. App. 3d 526 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 22, 1975

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a witness has been properly qualified as an expert (Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. Wienrank, 66 Ill.App.2d 60 , 213 N.E. 2d 411 ; Taylor v. … The testimony clearly established that Marathon owned only the underground storage tanks, fill pipes, and pumps and that the Crawfords had purchased the space heater and that they owned and operated the station.