Case law

Chicago Tribune v. College of DuPage

2017 IL App (2d) 160274 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 2017

Importantly, not even the College’s own operations would qualify as a governmental function under the rule advocated by defendants. … Similarly, section 7(1)(c) exempts “[p]ersonal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly - 12 -  unwarranted

Deen v. Lustig

337 Ill. App. 3d 294 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 2003

In his charge, Been sought reinstatement to his former position or a similar position for which he is qualified, reinstatement of all sick leave and vacation leave Been used between January 1997 and February 7, 2000, reasonable … An abuse of discretion is found when a decision is reached without employing conscientious judgment or when the decision is clearly against logic. Bodine Electric of Champaign v. City of Champaign, 305 Ill.

Watts v. ADDO Management, L.L.C.

2018 IL App (1st) 170201 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2018

Wage Act count. ¶ 22 In coming to this decision, we have considered but are unpersuaded by the defendants’ citation to a passage on the Department of Labor’s website, which they purport affirmatively establishes … The agency’s regulations clearly provide that the plaintiffs need only allege that they did perform work inside the state, which they did. See 56 Ill. Adm. Code 300.440(c) (2014).

People v. Hieber

258 Ill. App. 3d 144 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 2, 1994

Wall stated further that he personally knew that Detective Sergeant Wick was knowledgeable as to the methods used by illegal bookmakers and that Wick has been qualified in court as an expert in bookmaking operations. … Wall’s surveillance of the Ellsworth residence, and that of his associate officers, yielded nothing but innocent facts, establishing only that the Hiebers likely lived at the address, there was some activity in the basement

City of Chicago v. Youkhana

213 Ill. Dec. 777 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 1995

This smacks of a police-state tactic and clearly violates the first amendment rights of the innocent persons. … The ordinance does not qualify the term "loiter" in any way. It is simply the act of loitering by a gang member with others that triggers the ordinance.

People v. Zumot

458 Ill. Dec. 859 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2021

Zumot’s 45-year sentence “clearly qualifies as de facto life.” … The sentencing judge clearly did not believe Mr.

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Aral Construction Corp.

225 N.E.3d 41 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 2022

App. 3d 660, 664 (1990) (“Unless the complaint, on its face, clearly alleges facts which, if true, would exclude - 10 - No. 1-21-0628 coverage, the potentiality of coverage … Thus, he qualifies as an insured whether he was performing duties in his capacity as the corporate secretary or in his capacity as an employee of the corporation.” Id. ¶ 16.

Hyman-Michaels Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance

9 Ill. App. 2d 13 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 6, 1955

Thus, it appears that certain differences in rate as well as coverage between the two policies were clearly observable. … This clearly was of no value. In any event it had a bearing on only one of the necessary elements to make plaintiff’s case and would not be reversible error.

People v. Majors

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 23, 1999

Therefore, defendant has failed to establish the prejudice prong under Strickland and his ineffec­ tive assistance of counsel claim must fail. B. … However, an involuntary manslaughter instruc­tion should not be given where the evidence clearly shows that the homicide was murder. People v. Foster , 119 Ill. 2d 69, 87 , 518 N.E.2d 82, 89 (1987).

Kotvan v. Kirk

321 Ill. App. 3d 733 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

A jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the jury’s findings are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence. Maple v. … In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish the standards of care against which the physician’s conduct is measured by the use of expert testimony. Knight v. Haydary, 223 Ill.

Radaszewski v. Industrial Commission

306 Ill. App. 3d 186 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 1999

Bleier reported that he had reports from numerous well-qualified physicians who had seen claimant. … Clearly, this doctor’s opinion does not assist employer.

Door Properties, LLC v. Nahlawi

468 Ill. Dec. 156 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 6, 2023

This compensation might not “land on a W-2 or 1099 form” but may qualify as attachable compensation no less. Id. … App. 3d at 43 (“The distinctions between the various categories of contempt *** have not always been clearly drawn.”).

Gurba v. Community High School District No. 155

2014 IL App (2d) 140098 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 22, 2014

In McLorn, the area of interest was sovereign immunity, which the constitution committed to the legislature. … Further, the test clearly supports the Board’s position and, standing alone, is persuasive.

Cook Communications Ministries v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 8, 2004

The Department's decision is not clearly erroneous and, indeed, is compelled by the case law. … At most, they tend to prove that plaintiff did not use its property "with a view to profit" (35 ILCS 200/15--40 (West 1998)), although, as we shall discuss, even that conclusion must be qualified.

Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP

2017 IL App (1st) 162746 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2018

Additionally, a cause of action should not be dismissed under section 2-619 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Feltmeier v. … At best, plaintiff is only an incidental beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship, and an incidental beneficiary is not qualified to bring a malpractice action of this character.

Vanderhoof v. Berk

2015 IL App (1st) 132927 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 23, 2016

This is contrary to established precedent. See Borowski v. … With the qualifier “if,” however, counsel essentially presented a hypothetical. Dr.

People v. Mitros

2016 IL App (1st) 121432 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2017

Defendant stipulated to the presence of an aggravating factor that would qualify him to receive the death penalty; that aggravating factor is not identified in the record. 1 Justice Epstein participated … Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2007). ¶ 18 Clearly, defendant’s challenge to his 1989 sentence is beyond the two-year time frame allowed in section 2-1401.

Village of Maywood v. Health, Inc.

104 Ill. App. 3d 948 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 1982

The court held that such use was clearly prohibited. In the present case, the applicable ordinance also prohibits any use that is not specifically set forth. … In the present case, we believe that Health, Inc.’s methadone clinic not only qualifies as a permitted use within the zoning ordinance, but its continuing existence is advocated by the public policy of the State of Illinois

Chandler v. American General Finance Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 27, 2002

A cause of action will not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears no set of facts can be proved which will entitle the plaintiff to recover. Bryson v. … In Jackson , the Supreme Court held: "We also agree with the appellate court that application of Lanier to this case does not confer a blanket immunization of assignees from liability under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Dinerstein v. Evanston Athletic Clubs, Inc.

2016 IL App (1st) 153388 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 9, 2016

action; (4) the judgment in the first action was plainly inconsistent with the equitable implementation of a statutory scheme; (5) the case involves a continuing or recurrent wrong; or (6) it is clearly … We will thus consider whether plaintiffs have established, or raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether they established, an “agreement in terms or effect” to the refiling of their claims.