Case law

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.

City of Geneva v. Du Page Airport Authority

193 Ill. App. 3d 613 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 26, 1990

A “special” law confers some special right, privilege, or immunity or imposes some particular burden upon some portion of the people of the State but less than all. … , the existing Airport Authority shall be dissolved upon the establishment of the Metropolitan Airport Authority.”

Jackson v. Chicago Classic Janitorial & Cleaning Service, Inc.

355 Ill. App. 3d 906 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 2005

particular action; (ii) practices or has practiced within the last 6 years or teaches or has taught within the last 6 years in the same area of health care or medicine that is at issue in the particular action; and (iii) is qualified … A copy of the written report, clearly identifying the plaintiff and the reasons for the reviewing health professional’s determination that a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action exists, must be attached

Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety v. City of Chicago

348 Ill. App. 3d 188 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2004

The general exemption, included in the first sentence of subsection (b), applies when a public body establishes that “the requested information constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” … Plaintiff recognizes that the notices of denial qualify as “public records” subject to disclosure under section 3, and such records are ordinarily subject to the general exemption included in section 7(l)(b).

People v. Spencer

119 Ill. App. 3d 971 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 1983

If that were the criteria of competency, many witnesses would not qualify, since anyone on the stand for several hours will be more tired when they finish than when they began. … Thus, she clearly had a greater capacity for communication.

People v. Kramer

278 Ill. App. 3d 963 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 1996

capacity of a minor child and was easily led in testimony; bolstered the credibility of that same witness by proving his prior consistent statements on cross-examination; failed to use evidence that a witness had been granted immunity … Moreover, Trojnar’s identification of Dahm as the passenger and the fact that the Blazer was owned by defendant’s parents, when added to counsel’s rigorous cross-examination of Jiminez, clearly indicate that the trial judge

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 Adoption of K.B.D.

982 N.E.2d 872 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

, but once he was 15 months old, she had done research and determined that the immunizations were harmful and did not have him immunized further. ¶ 100 Vicki testified that after Aaron went back to Illinois … A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.

In Re Marriage of Cohn

94 Ill. App. 3d 732 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 20, 1981

which reserves matters of maintenance and property division for future court action was a final or interlocutory judgment, the supreme court determined that since the judgment reserved the other issues in controversy, it clearly … Justice Ward stated he also would affirm the appellate court’s dismissal of that appeal, but for the reason that the deferred issues were not separate “claims” within the meaning of Rule 304(a), nor did the appeal qualify

Berry v. City of Chicago

2019 IL App (1st) 180871 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 23, 2019

“Municipal defendants are required to establish both of these elements in order to invoke immunity under section 2-201.” Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 379. … Since the City has not established both elements of section 2-201 immunity under the Tort Immunity Act, dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code would be error.

Kennedy Bros. v. Property Tax Appeal Board

158 Ill. App. 3d 154 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 1987

Plaintiff requested that the 1983 assessed valuation be established at $54,667, as previously requested, but that the assessed valuation in no event be established at greater than $209,176, a figure based on the appraiser … This is clearly not the issue here.

Buford v. Chicago Housing Authority

131 Ill. App. 3d 235 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1985

An expert is properly qualified where: (1) his opinion relates to a science, profession, business, or occupation and is beyond the knowledge or experience of the average juror; (2) he has sufficient skill, knowledge or experience … CHA’s tort liability is grounded in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act), section 3 — 102(a) of which provides that a public entity, such as CHA, has a duty to maintain its property in

Kappel v. Police Bd. of City of Chicago

220 Ill. App. 3d 580 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

The Federal government granted Kappel immunity from prosecution. … This is clearly not such a case. Here, Kappel exhibited neither impulsive nor emotionally charged behavior.

Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Kellogg

338 Ill. App. 618 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 1949

services from fees which he collected from his clients and that he employed attorneys for work to be done for clients whom such attorneys had never met and without the relationship of attorney and client ever having been established … Bule 17 in effect prior to 1938, merely provided that, in the very limited field defined, qualified non-attorneys might represent applicants “in the presentation and prosecution of applications for patents.”

Ivey v. Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc.

186 N.E.3d 1076 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 2021

Id. at 192. ¶ 30 After argument, the trial court granted summary judgment for TURSS, stating: “The Milex case is clearly distinguishable to me. … The plaintiff’s expert established damages by analyzing the generic drug’s established market and actual sales.

Bocock v. Will County Sheriff

2018 IL App (3d) 170330 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 2018

Each case contains the following identical order dated February 2, 2017, apparently issued after the trial: “Matter for directed finding on all counts is granted for reasons established by court.” … “[A] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” Marshall v.

Amato v. Greenquist

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 16, 1997

from their ambit, so long as they do not hold themselves out as qualified under the acts. … First, we believe that the allegations clearly indicate that the plaintiff approached the Bishop within the context of his duties as the head of the church. As such, the claim is clearly non-justiciable.

Sharma v. Division of Professional Regulation of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation

467 Ill. Dec. 697 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 16, 2023

Sharma contends that the Department’s determination that he violated section 22(A)(12) of the Act (225 ILCS 60/22(A)(12) (West 2020)) was clearly erroneous. … “The purpose of the Act is to protect the public health and welfare from those not qualified to practice medicine.” Kafin, 2012 IL App (1st) 111875, ¶ 42.

Senno v. The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services

2015 IL App (1st) 132837 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2015

According to the statute, the ALJ conducting the hearing and investigation is a qualified representative of the Department. 305 ILCS 5/12-4.9 (West 2002). … Senno’s argument here, this is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore the clearly erroneous standard, rather than the manifest weight standard, applies. ¶ 42 The clearly erroneous standard of

Brown v. Broadway Perryville Lumber Co.

156 Ill. App. 3d 16 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 1987

Reviewing courts are entitled to have the issues clearly defined, with pertinent authorities cited and a cohesive legal argument presented. (Williams v. Danley Lumber Co. (1984), 129 Ill. App. 3d 325 , 472 N.E.2d 586 .) … For purposes of establishing common law fraud, there must be: (1) a statement of material fact as opposed to opinion; (2) the statement must be untrue; (3) the party making the statement knows or believes it to be untrue;