Case law

People v. Martinez

62 Ill. App. 3d 7 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 1978

According to McCabe, defendant was offered such immunity but rejected it. … Considered as a whole, the evidence adduced by the State clearly defined the means, opportunity and motive for the Raymond homicide and serves to establish defendant’s role therein.

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

Corral ex rel. Corral v. Chicago Park District

277 Ill. App. 3d 357 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 1995

The Tort Immunity Act clearly identifies which elements of the common law the legislature intended to include in it. … App. 3d 972 , 482 N.E.2d 665 (issue of immunity never reached where plaintiff failed to establish a common law duty).) In Comastro v. Village of Rosemont (1984), 122 Ill.

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.

Poelker v. MacOn Community Unit School District No. 5

212 Ill. App. 3d 312 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 22, 1991

I The evidence submitted to the court at the time of the motion for summary judgment established Allen had been asked to measure the discus throws during the meet and to keep the records of the throws. … School districts are not immune from tort liability. (Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 (1959), 18 Ill. 2d 11, 25 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 96 .)

Poliny v. Soto

178 Ill. App. 3d 203 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 1988

Clearly, plaintiff’s argument is without merit. … To place such a burden on law enforcement would be clearly untenable.

Williams v. Chicago Board of Education

267 Ill. App. 3d 446 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 1994

Clearly, by its terms, the regulation does not so state. Rather, it simply requires that a rope be provided. … and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.

Montag v. Board of Education

112 Ill. App. 3d 1039 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 4, 1983

Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 (1959), 18 Ill. 2d 11 , in abolishing the tort immunity of school districts, established a right to an action in negligence. … Stat. 1967, ch. 122, pars. 27 — 5 to 27 — 7), the classes in which [the plaintiffs] were injured are clearly ‘activities connected with the school program.’ ” ( 63 Ill. 2d 165, 172 .)

Kane v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Universities

43 Ill. App. 3d 315 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 1976

The plaintiff, however, is clearly incorrect in attempting such a comparison because our supreme court stated in Williams that: “Our views with respect to the immunity of local governmental units were stated in Molitor v. … These and no doubt numerous other considerations have impelled the General Assembly, in modifying the State’s immunity from suit, to establish the Court of Claims, and we cannot say that the classification of claimants thus

Hudgens v. Dean

53 Ill. App. 3d 126 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 20, 1977

easement, that easement has been extinguished; (5) that assuming an easement existed, defendant had the lawful authority to close the road to vehicular traffic; (6) that the injunctive relief granted by the trial court was clearly … Thus, apart from the findings of the trial court as to the establishment of a public highway, it cannot be disputed that the State owns fee title to the roadway in question.

Devogelear v. Dart

2025 IL App (1st) 231404 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2025

Devogelear failed to support his claims with adequate factual allegations, that his claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act, and that he failed to establish any constitutional violations. Mr. … Lisuzzo “may” report to the Standards Board any conduct the Sheriff’s Office deemed appropriate is clearly an exercise of discretion and a policy determination subject to section 2-201 immunity. Second, Mr.

Cooper v. Bi-State Development Agency

158 Ill. App. 3d 19 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 1987

Therefore, the instant order is clearly distinguishable from the orders involved in the cases cited by plaintiff. On appeal, orders must be interpreted in the context of the motions which accompany them. … Article II is entitled “General Provisions Relating to Immunity” and section 2 — 101 of the Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev.

Peters v. Herrin Community School District No. 4

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2010

In the instant case, plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty under section 3-102(a) for the School District to protect Gene Peters. … The Illinois Supreme Court has clearly stated that there is recreational school property and nonrecreational school property. Bubb v.

G. H. Sternberg & Co. v. Cellini

16 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 5, 1973

against suit in the circuit court; and (c)- that the action was against an officer of the State in his official capacity, who, is therefore, also protected by sovereign immunity. … Indeed, it is established law that plaintiff must set forth those facts in detaü and with particularity which reveal plaintiff’s right to injunctive relief. (Daly v. Sheehan (1959), 22 Ill.App.2d 173 , 159 N.E.2d 506 .)

Tosado v. Miller

293 Ill. App. 3d 544 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 1997

Section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act clearly provides that local governmental units and their employees are not subject to suit beyond a one-year period. … It is well-established in Illinois that if there are two statutory provisions, one general and the other particular, the particular provision must prevail.

Carter v. Du Page County Sheriff

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 1999

Plaintiff contends that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply because (1) the standard of care established in sections 11-205 and 11-907 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-205, 11-907 (West 1996)) supercedes … This argument is clearly erroneous for two reasons. First, and most disturbingly, the language counsel relies upon and quotes at length comes, not from the court's opinion, but from a special concurring opinion.

King v. City of Chicago

324 Ill. App. 3d 856 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 16, 2001

ANALYSIS On appeal, King contends the trial court erred in ruling that the CHAPD and Hixon were immune from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS … He has failed, therefore, to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of continued employment with the CPD. See Faustrum v.

Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital

396 Ill. App. 3d 729 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 2009

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8— 101(a) (West 2006)). … Schroeder’s alleged act of licking plaintiffs breast was clearly unrelated to her patient care.

Hatteberg v. Cundiff

359 Ill. Dec. 307 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 25, 2012

Defendant Was Responding to an Emergency ¶ 15 Plaintiffs first argue that defendant does not qualify for immunity under the Tort Immunity Act because he was not "responding to an emergency" at the time of the collision. … Id. at 562 , 241 Ill.Dec. 905 , 720 N.E.2d at 366 . ¶ 17 Here, defendant was clearly responding to an emergency call he received from METCAD regarding an accident involving *1000 three vehicles.