Case law

Cuculich v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.

251 Ill. Dec. 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 1, 2000

The trial court clearly required plaintiffs to present clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act to defeat defendant’s motion. … whether the evidence at least established a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Botthof v. Fenske

280 Ill. App. 362 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 1935

It recognizes the division which the act established between employers and employees who are subject to the provisions of the act and those who are not, and establishes a different measure of liability for the negligent third … The defendant was clearly not so bound.

People v. Dixon

308 Ill. App. 3d 1008 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 23, 1999

All statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of rebutting that presumption is on the challenger, who must clearly establish a constitutional violation. Arangold Corp. v. … (West 1994 & Supp. 1995)) and establishes immunity for individuals who collect blood or urine for evidentiary purposes at the request of a law enforcement officer (Pub. Act 89 — 689, § 70, eff.

Lake County Riverboat L.P. v. Illinois Gaming Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2000

The Board did not appeal Judge Goshgarian's venue order, though it clearly had the right to seek leave to appeal. See 166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(4). … Plaintiff first contends that Judge Walter's venue ruling was erroneous because Judge Walter failed to adhere to the conditions of intervention established by Judge Goshgarian.

McCaley v. Petrovic

253 N.E.3d 1010 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 5, 2024

Waxman’s testimony thus qualifies as proper rebuttal evidence that the plaintiff should have been allowed to disclose and present at trial. … It appears that the plaintiff made no effort to establish actual agency at trial.

Continental Mobile Telephone Co. v. Chicago S M S a Ltd. Partnership

225 Ill. App. 3d 317 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 1992

Because plaintiff actually achieved a negative net activation of 211 lines, it qualified only for the standard reseller discount of 23.5%. … It is well established that a court may not rewrite a contract to suit one of the parties, and that when the terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be enforced as written. (Michigan Avenue National Bank v.

Pink v. Dempsey

350 Ill. App. 405 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1953

We clearly think the latter. In the Winger case, supra, the court said, p. 492: “We feel that section 2 refers to evidence upon the trial of a cause. … This is in effect urging the setoff of what appears to be a tactical advantage against a long established statutory policy. The pretrial discovery proceeding was open to claimant.

People v. Boshears

228 Ill. App. 3d 677 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 8, 1992

The paragraph clearly makes a distinction between the breath test itself and the room-air analysis. … The best evidence rule applies only when the contents or terms of a writing are in issue and must be established. *** Here, the issue was not the contents of the license, but whether [the operator] was qualified and authorized

Piser v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 12, 2010

Even assuming arguendo the exhibits were hearsay, they would nonetheless qualify for admission into evidence under the business records exception. … Moreover, Gottardo’s affidavit and the numerous letters sent to plaintiff plainly asking for his financial documents, with no counter-affidavit response by plaintiff, clearly establish that plaintiff did not cooperate.

South Side Trust & Savings Bank v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

401 Ill. App. 3d 424 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2010

Plaintiffs complaint clearly conveys that Air lst’s duty of care arose from its actions as the seller of the plane. … The FAA approved those bulletins and thus was clearly aware of the problem.

People v. Keough

2024 IL App (2d) 230400-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 3, 2024

Defendant does not contest the trial court’s ruling that he was charged with a qualifying offense under section 110-6.1(a)(3) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110- 6.1(a)(3) (West 2022)). … Proof Of Commission Of A Qualifying Offense ¶ 16 Defendant first argues that the State failed to meet its burden of establishing that the proof is evident or presumption great that he committed the offenses of which he

Bowman v. Dixon Theatre Renovation, Inc.

221 Ill. App. 3d 35 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 30, 1991

To qualify, defendant was required to raise $400,000 in matching funds and to own the building. Defendant introduced a pledge card, which Brantley testified was used to raise contributions. … Before a court may order a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish that he possesses a clearly ascertainable right which needs protection; that he will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; that there

Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of St. Louis

153 Ill. App. 3d 605 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 11, 1987

The well-established rule is that bare contentions without argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal. Deckard v. … There, as here, the plaintiffs attempted to establish superior title to the property foreclosed upon by their mortgagee, the Peoples Bank.

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Heitman Trust Co.

317 Ill. App. 256 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1942

Kinney had the right to sue the Heitman Trust Company alone for participating in a breach of'trust by her guardian is clearly established by the authorities. In American Bonding Co. v. … This is a case where equity clearly demands that interest be allowed.

JI Aviation, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

335 Ill. App. 3d 905 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 14, 2002

rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ … However, that holding was based on facts that clearly supported the determination that JPA was the substantive seller.

Estate of Sewart

236 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1991

Sewart, by a physician, which unquestionably establishes the presence of brain death.” … He concluded that only one element, unresponsive coma, was clearly evident in the Se-wart case. The second element, apnea, or the absence of spontaneous breathing, was inconclusive.

Pettigrew v. Putterman

331 Ill. App. 3d 633 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 2002

Summary judgment on this count was clearly improper. II. … Although defendant may be able to establish at trial that the belief of both Dr.

Preski v. Warchol Construction Co.

111 Ill. App. 3d 641 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1982

It was established in Consumers Construction Co. v. County of Cook (1971), 1 Ill. … This qualified them for admission as business records within the scope of Rule 236 of the Supreme Court of Illinois.” 1 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1091 , 275 N.E.2d 696, 698 .

People v. Smalley

249 Ill. App. 3d 964 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1991

Mutual combat qualifies as serious provocation only if decedent’s conduct is serious enough to unleash an intense passion in a reasonable person. (People v. Pugh (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 860 , 543 N.E.2d 875 .) … However, any impropriety here did not rise to the level of error requiring remandment for a new post-trial hearing where the record clearly shows that the alleged errors asserted by defendant fail to support the possibility

People v. Davis

56 Ill. App. 2d 365 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 15, 1965

Maurice, 31 Ill2d 456, 202 NE2d 480 (1964), said: “[Continuity of possession or positive identification is therefore necessary to qualify such material or the results of analyses for admission into evidence. … The testimony of Simmons comes within the rule that the credibility of the witnesses in a case tried without a jury is a matter for the trial judge to determine, and his judgment, based thereon, will not, unless clearly in