Case law

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

Dollison v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad

42 Ill. App. 3d 267 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 7, 1976

The Rock Island’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in both rulings for two reasons: (1) the evidence presented is insufficient to establish Rock Island’s negligence, or to establish that a defective … Verdicts are not considered against the manifest weight of the evidence unless an opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding of the jury is palpably erroneous. (Haas v. Woodard, 61 Ill.

People v. Canas

458 Ill. Dec. 200 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 30, 2021

¶ 26 The record clearly establishes that the State impermissibly participated in the leave to file proceedings. See id. The appropriate remedy for this error is less clear. … “Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d 179, 188 (2000).

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.

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.

Mead v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF McHENRY CTY.

143 Ill. App. 3d 1088 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 1986

Supreme Court Rule 341 clearly delineates what is and what is not to be included in the statement of facts. (87 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(6).) … Ct. 1051 ), and we are entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to have cited pertinent authority (Fuller v. Justice (1983), 117 Ill.

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 .

Chicago White Sox, Ltd. v. Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.

240 N.E.3d 1153 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 29, 2023

¶ 21 In this case, the sole issue is whether the White Sox plaintiffs qualified as additional insureds under We Clean’s insurance policy. … ¶ 23 In this case, there is no dispute that the language of the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous—it clearly provides coverage for “[a]ny person or organization for whom you are performing

Eychaner v. Gross

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

Moreover, both experts agreed that the right to restore and operate the Theatre qualifies as a charitable trust purpose. … Clearly, the corpus of a trust can be an intangible thing. Restatement (Second) of Trusts §82 (1959).

McCaskill v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board

2019 IL App (1st) 190190 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2019

primary may not run in another established-party primary or as independent in same election cycle). … It may be true that the dual-circulator prohibition qualifies as a “petition requirement.”

Siwinski v. The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

2019 IL App (1st) 180388 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2019

standard of review is whether the Board’s determination is clearly erroneous. … The Board, therefore, was not tasked with choosing between the evidence of “[w]itnesses qualified in their fields,” who “stated their opinions and gave their reasons for those opinions.”

Efremidis v. Industrial Comm'n

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 1999

For a " 'finding to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent' " ( Drogos v. Village of Bensenville , 100 Ill. … Fintel was not qualified to render an opinion that decedent’s work activities as described by Rosales could not be a causative factor in his death; the Commission believed it must give more credence to Dr.

Kernats v. Smith Industries Medical Systems, Inc.

283 Ill. App. 3d 455 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 3, 1996

The application is referred to a panel of qualified experts for study and submission of a report and recommendation respecting approval. 21 U.S.C. § 360e(c)(2). … Although Congress' desire to promote the development of medical technology was clearly expressed by the passage of the MDA, its legislative history indicates that "any fears regarding regulatory burdens were related more

Huffman v. Huffman

50 Ill. App. 3d 217 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 6, 1977

After motions by both parties asking for the permanent custody of the children and after several temporary orders which attempted to establish an acceptable and workable joint custody plan, the trial court held a lengthy … We agree with plaintiff’s third contention that two of defendant’s witnesses, Irma Crocken and William Curry, were not sufficiently qualified to testify as experts.

City of East Peoria v. Melton

467 Ill. Dec. 136 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 22, 2023

We review mixed questions of law and fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Medponics Illinois, LLC, 2021 IL 125443, ¶ 29. … The clearly erroneous standard applies to this issue.

Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive Council

303 Ill. App. 3d 317 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1999

Likewise, in the present case we find that simply prefacing a statement with qualifying language such as “I think” or “I believe” does not turn it into protected speech. … The court noted that general purpose public figures always must establish actual malice to prevail in a defamation action.

Coyne v. Robert H. Anderson & Associates, Inc.

215 Ill. App. 3d 104 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 20, 1991

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether or not a person has been qualified as an expert. Galindo v. Riddell, Inc. (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 139 . … This is a legal conclusion the jury was clearly able to make without Brickman’s testimony, expert or otherwise.

Duncan v. Peterson

408 Ill. App. 3d 911 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 2010

We review de novo whether a statement qualifies as constitutionally protected speech under the first amendment. Schivarelli v. CBS, Inc., 333 Ill. App. 3d 755, 760 (2002), citing Dubinsky v. … Manifest weight is defined as that weight which is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable. Anderson v. Beers, 74 Ill. App. 3d 619, 623 (1979).

DeMarco v. University of Health Sciences

40 Ill. App. 3d 474 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 14, 1976

For each of these places, there are 30 to 40 qualified applicants. … The record establishes that the school clearly, repeatedly and fully described the program to plaintiff and that he knowingly accepted its terms.