Case law

People v. Washington

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2003

A forensic scientist was called by the State at trial to establish that the content of the 14 small bags was cocaine. … Likewise, in the case at bar, the parties stipulated that forensic chemist Brister was "qualified to testify as an expert in the area of forensic chemistry."

Severino v. FREEDOM WOODS, INC.

407 Ill. App. 3d 238 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 3, 2010

Plaintiff further argued that defendant’s claim of res judicata also failed because it could not establish the first element of “a final judgment on the merits.” … In October 1999, the circuit court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligence count on immunity grounds.

In re I.W.

2018 IL App (4th) 170656 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 6, 2019

Respondent’s attorney, however, stipulated that Osgood was a qualified clinical psychologist. … I am mindful the testimony of an expert may be sufficient to establish unfitness under section 1(D)(p) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 2016)). See In re R.M.B., 146 Ill.

In Re Marriage of Baumgartner

384 Ill. App. 3d 39 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2008

App. 3d 105 , 579 N.E.2d 6 (1991), wherein the court stated, “ ‘[cjourts have no power to delegate any of their duties unless clearly authorized by law.’ ” Stribling, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 109 , quoting Smallwood v. … It does not expressly qualify under the guidelines set forth in [the California statute], nor do such loans share similar features with those specifically enumerated items designated to qualify as income.

People v. Ray

83 Ill. App. 3d 1029 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 1980

It was established that the insurance policy and letter came from the insurance company office. … During the trial of the defendant it became clearly apparent that Hoffman was the chief witness for the State.

People v. Dorsey

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 2005

Intent to manufacture is clearly a substitute for actual manufacture or delivery. But how is the offense classified, how is the penalty established, when there is no manufacture only an intent to manufacture? … Without evidence establishing a "substantial step," defendant cannot be punished for intent to manufacture a greater amount.

Lawrence & Allen, Inc. v. Cambridge Human Res. Group, Inc.

292 Ill. App. 3d 131 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 1997

Thus, the lack of a geographic *442 limitation or of any qualifying language in the covenant not to solicit is unreasonable. … Neither the covenant not to compete nor the covenant not to solicit, however, is qualified in such a manner.

Midwest Physician Group, Ltd. v. Dept. of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 28, 1999

At a hearing on MPG's complaint on September 17, 1997, MPG argued that the property qualified for a charitable exemption under the six Korzen guideline factors. … MPG's use of its property was much different than that of the property in Lorenz ; the record here clearly shows that MPG's property was primarily used for MPG.

Romeo v. City of Chicago

2026 IL App (1st) 232233-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

They further contended that Halley was legally justified in shooting Augustus, Halley’s conduct was immunized under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act because he did not act willfully and wantonly, and defendants … Clearly, this communication was sufficient to establish that they would perform an investigatory stop because as Jones approached Augustus to ask him for his CCL, the other officers surrounded Augustus, with

Capner v. Holbrook

273 Ill. App. 199 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 1933

Ill. 184, 191 , we think is here applicable, viz., “The evidence, particularly upon the question of mental capacity, is conflicting, but a careful consideration of it does not show that the finding of the court below is clearly … Where the testimony is thus conflicting and is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the finding of the jury must-be regarded as conclusive.” (See, also, Maher v. Maher, 338 Ill. 102, 106 .)

People v. Williams

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 27, 2008

In this case, the record clearly establishes that an insufficient foundation was presented concerning whether proper procedures and protocols were followed in testing by Cellmark, located in Maryland. … Clearly this burden was not met by the State in this case.

Allendorf v. Redfearn

2011 IL App (2d) 110130 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2011

The defendants argue that this statute immunizes property owners such as themselves from liability when someone is injured on their land while using an ATV, as occurred here. ¶ 12 To determine the intent of a … App. 3d 1067, 1070-71 (1996) (where plaintiff was an experienced farmhand and it was undisputed that part of his job was to care for the boar that attacked him, farmhand was “clearly not the type of plaintiff

Pendleton v. King

55 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 1977

Testimony from a nearby lot owner in the development established that he had purchased a lot at least a year before Mrs. Pendleton saw the property. … We have frequentiy held that the general rule in equity cases is that great weight should be attached to the findings of the chancellor, and that they will not be reversed unless clearly against the weight of the evidence

People v. Williams

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2000

In this case, corpus delicti was established without reference to any confession by defendant. … The evidence in this case is clearly sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The remaining issues concern defendant's sentence.

People Ex Rel. Ballard v. Niekamp

961 N.E.2d 288 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 19, 2011

This clearly appears minor and insignificant, considering defendant was not fined. … On November 3, 2009, the trial court granted plaintiffs leave to add Bemis to their amended pleadings. ¶ 35 Niekamp has not established, nor even attempted to establish, how he was prejudiced by this six-month delay.

People v. Kucharski

987 N.E.2d 906 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2013

The State argued that this was clearly done by the defendant with an intent to harass the victim. … Accordingly, language that qualifies as ‘obscene’ under a common or dictionary definition would fall within the meaning of the statute.

Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.

226 N.E.3d 694 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 2023

A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court … Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429 (2006) (a section 2-615 dismissal is appropriate if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery).

Sigcho-Lopez v. Illinois State Board of Elections

2021 IL App (1st) 200561 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 14, 2021

The Board’s application of a rule of law to established or admitted facts is a mixed question of fact and law that will not be disturbed on review unless it is clearly erroneous. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210-11. … The payment of legal fees incurred in defense of such allegations by a political committee can, therefore, qualify as an expenditure to defray a reasonable expense of an officeholder in connection with the performance

Grabs v. Safeway, Inc.

395 Ill. App. 3d 286 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2009

In Smith, our supreme court determined that the defendant park district was not immune under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2 — 109 (West 2002)) against claims of retaliatory … the law in Illinois, except when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy.’ ” Marin v.

Jackson v. Seib

372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2007

The plaintiffs oral motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability only was clearly untimely, because the jury had begun deliberating. … To qualify as “scientific knowledge,” an inference or assertion must be derived from the scientific method. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 , 125 L. Ed. 2d at 481 , 113 S. Ct. at 2795 .