Case law

United City of Yorkville v. Village of Sugar Grove

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 2007

The boundary line in the Yorkville Agreement was established in light of their then-existing corporate limits. … "Predictions usually do not qualify as such present facts [citation], and mistaken predictions will not invalidate a contract." Corcoran, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 454.

Affordable Housing Preservation Foundation v. Smith Wiiams

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 2007

It therefore could not qualify as any kind of motion, much less a posttrial motion under section 2-1203. … The court's discussion of the specificity requirements should therefore not be construed as establishing a rule that is controlling where, as here, the postjudgment motion does attack the circuit court's judgment and does

In Re JS

121 Ill. App. 3d 927 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1984

Alen Ravitz, a psychiatrist, testified that prior to the appearance of a translator on February 9, 1982, he had a clinical interview in English with the respondent, and concluded that respondent did not clearly understand … Zepeda (1970), 47 Ill.2d 23, 27 , 265 N.E.2d 647 ), as the act does not make juveniles immune from proper police investigation. 47 Ill.2d 23, 28 .

People v. Loera

250 Ill. App. 3d 31 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 30, 1993

Ramos clearly identified “Ucla” and knew “Ucla” to be Loera. … It was important to establish defendant’s gang ties in order to supply the jury with a motive for the crime.

Quinn v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

2018 IL App (1st) 170834 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2018

The state defendants sought a section 2-619 dismissal on the ground of sovereign immunity rather than standing. … Before the trial court, defendants raised issues concerning standing and sovereign immunity, but they do not raise these issues before us. People v.

People v. Guerrero

2020 IL App (1st) 172156 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 23, 2021

the case at bar, the prosecutor did not call the expert “trash” or label her testimony “babble” or “ridiculous,” although he did point out her own memory lapses and criticized the substance of her testimony, clearly … She testified that she had never been found not qualified but there were “times my testimony wasn’t allowed to be presented.”

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.

People v. Rolfe

353 Ill. App. 3d 1005 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 5, 2004

The defendant’s trial testimony was somewhat convoluted and was clearly intended to minimize the ferocity and severity of the attacks on the victims. … It offered a definition of proof of the intent to kill that read as follows: “Intent to kill can be established by proof of surrounding circumstances!,] including the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon!

People v. Perez

101 Ill. App. 3d 64 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 9, 1981

Ill. 2d 457, 463 , 192 N.E.2d 891, 894 , as follows: “[I]t is well settled that where a witness has been impeached by proof that he has made prior inconsistent statements, he may bring out all of the prior statements to qualify … App. 3d 881 , 392 N.E.2d 142 , he argues that the prior conviction of defendant here was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Boyt

129 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 1984

She points out the offer clearly was conditioned upon the State’s assent to the specific terms thereof. … It has been established that the government need not initiate or participate in plea bargaining (Weatherford v. Bursey (1977), 429 U.S. 545, 561 , 51 L. Ed. 2d 30, 43 , 97 S.

Chicago & Alton Railway Co. v. Brooks

115 Ill. App. 5 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 1904

As thus construed the qualifying words “so that they may exercise a mutual influence upon each other promotive of proper caution” have no application to the first, but are limited entirely to the second. … The subject is then more clearly presented to the jury. It is also assigned as error that the court gave improper instructions on the part of the plaintiff and refused proper instructions asked by defendant.

Ferrell v. Plasti-Drum Corp.

159 Ill. App. 3d 936 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 14, 1987

In a bench trial, the trial court sits as the jury and weighs evidence and determines credibility and its findings are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be set aside unless clearly against the manifest weight … The agreement qualified the 10% of net profit figure as follows: “[H]owever, any bonuses paid to officers or employees *** shall be added to the net profit.”

Walker v. Walker

207 Ill. App. 186 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 11, 1917

There is an exception to this rule where the devise or bequest is made to a class and a member of the class dies before the testator, leaving other members of the class qualified to take. … From the foregoing it clearly appears that the testator did not have in mind the death of any of the Foleys occurring before his death and made no provision for such a contingency.

People v. Cardenas

209 Ill. App. 3d 217 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 16, 1991

Clearly this evidence sufficed to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His victim identified him in a lineup and in court. … Defendant also contends that the State failed to establish that he qualified for sentencing under the Habitual Criminal Act.

Tollway North Office Center Central National Bank v. Streicher

83 Ill. App. 3d 239 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1980

The evidence clearly establishes that the proposed facility is incidental to the operation of an office complex. … Defendants seek to split the proposed use into food service and liquor sales, and focus particularly on whether liquor sales can qualify as an accessory use. One case cited by defendants (Gross v.

Michalek v. Village of Midlothian

116 Ill. App. 3d 1021 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 1983

Plaintiffs argue that the testimony of their witness clearly established that the value as zoned was $84,000, while the testimony of the Village’s witness that the current value is $200,000 was based on only two comparable … On this point, then, the opinions of the experts differ, and we cannot say that the basis for any opinion is unreasonable, since all purported to speak from personal experience, and presented resumes clearly establishing

People v. Murphy

3 Ill. App. 3d 345 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 1972

The record clearly demonstrates that there was a reasonable ground for the arrest of these defendants without a warrant. A liquor store was robbed at about 6:45 P.M. … The context of the motion is that they needed time to read legal materials and the tenor of their argument here is that a layman must be given adidtional time to qualify himself for trial with legal training.

C.L. Maddox, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America

208 Ill. App. 3d 1042 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 26, 1991

Evidence tending to show the motive for arson is clearly relevant. In Commerce Union Bank v. Midland National Insurance Co. (1964), 53 Ill. … They also argue that Rea was “qualified” to express the opinions set forth above.

Arnold v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.

154 Ill. App. 3d 863 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 22, 1987

Under ERISA, an “employee welfare benefit plan” is broadly defined to include: “[A]ny plan, fund, or program which was *** established or maintained by an employer *** to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established … In conclusion, policy and procedure No. 1414-A1 did not clearly require the payment of severance benefits when defendant sold a plant and the employees were immediately reemployed by the purchaser.

Flannery v. Allyn

75 Ill. App. 2d 365 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1966

Allyn, supra, on page 319 we said: “In a case where there is a qualified privilege and malice is therefore not inferred, the burden of proving malice is upon the plaintiff, and this must be proven to the satisfaction of the … adequate under Times, or whether Butts was the kind of ‘public official’ contemplated by Times, or whether a reversal might otherwise be required if the constitutional issues had been timely presented, we hold that Curtis has clearly