Case law

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.

In Re Marriage of Pihaly

194 Ill. Dec. 655 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 2, 1994

Given that petitioner will recoup these payments upon the residence’s sale, we find that they do not qualify as child support. … Clearly, the order gives no specific formula for determining child-support levels. Thus, it has no precedential value.

People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Village of Hanover Park

311 Ill. App. 3d 515 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1999

Defendant, Village of Hanover Park, has established by municipal ordinance an alternative traffic enforcement program for certain traffic offenses. *** 10. … Clearly, Mr. Ryan qualifies as any relator, and it is equally clear that the Attorney General in this case was authorized to initiate this action on behalf of the People based on the information Mr.

Lo v. Provena Covenant Medical Center - Modified upon denial of rehearing

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 31, 2003

Violation of a Bylaw Courts are ill-qualified to run a hospital, but they can read and interpret bylaws. … To secure a temporary restraining order, plaintiff had to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he possessed a certain and clearly ascertainable right needing protection, (2) he had no adequate remedy at

Oak Park Trust & Savings Bank v. Fisher

82 Ill. App. 2d 251 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 20, 1967

the entire record overwhelmingly and preponderantly establishes that Dr. … The rule of law in this regard is clearly and firmly established in Illinois. Yet the Court in the case at bar decreed contrary to the rule of law. The Court accepted fully and completely the testimony of Dr.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

16 N.E.3d 72 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 8, 2014

¶7 The parties agree that we review the Board's decision that a position qualifies as a "confidential employee" position under the "clearly erroneous" standard. … The Board's determination as to whether the facts establish that an employee is a confidential employee as defined by statute will not be reversed unless that determination was clearly erroneous.

People v. Curry

384 Ill. App. 3d 315 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 2008

Under the ACCA, a burglary committed in an enclosed space or building, a so-called “generic burglary,” qualified as a violent felony but a burglary committed in a boat or motor vehicle did not. … Defendant’s intervening stay as a guest of the government clearly shows his convictions met the requirements of section 33B — 1 of the Act.

People v. Williams

252 Ill. App. 3d 1050 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 3, 1993

Both witnesses gave unequivocal responses as to their ability to see individuals clearly on the ground. … Rose Williams testified that she could clearly see defendant shooting three times.

Chicago Housing Authority v. Human Rights Commission

325 Ill. App. 3d 1115 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 12, 2001

next General Counsel is probably going to be another nigger from City Hall.’ ” After learning of Allen’s recommendation to terminate him, Lasko filed a grievance with CHA alleging that he was not given an opportunity to qualify … However, contrary to CHA’s contentions, ample law, both federal and state, clearly indicates that Illinois does recognize the mixed-motive theory.

People v. Ingram

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 11, 2008

Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there is authority for admitting even those that clearly are. [Citations.] … The court in Gilmore concluded that the victim’s statements to detectives qualified as dying declarations and were not rendered inadmissible by the principles articulated in Crawford.

Foster v. Foster

110 Ill. App. 2d 128 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 1969

These two instances would hardly qualify as proof of his wife’s determination never to make a new home with him. … Gillespie, 70 Ill App2d 38, 216 NE2d 462 (1966), are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Noakes v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

363 Ill. App. 3d 851 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 24, 2006

Generally, in Illinois, pure opinion testimony of an expert is admissible if the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a field that has “ ‘at least a modicum of reliability’ ” and … Our review of the record shows that defendant objected to Cordray’s testimony based on lack of foundation for what was clearly medical testimony.

White v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

2014 IL App (1st) 132315 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 17, 2014

Second, the circuit court determined that the Board's determination that White's position as a police aide did not qualify for service credit under section 5-214(c) was clearly erroneous as the evidence established White … I would find that the Board’s determination was not clearly erroneous where the Board concluded that White did not qualify for pension credit under section 5-214(c) because she did not show that her prior civilian employment

People v. Nancy A.

344 Ill. App. 3d 540 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 2003

The first petition, which was filled out by Antonia, was legally insufficient, and clearly the State needed time within which to file a petition that contained legally sufficient allegations. … Turning to the case at bar, on January 31, 2002, the State established through clear and convincing evidence that respondent was mentally.ill based upon the testimony of Dr.

In Re Marriage of Hochleutner

260 Ill. App. 3d 684 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1994

While we have found no recent case with similar facts, we resolve this appeal on the basis of well-established principles. … Petitioner’s argument that the award is unsupported by the evidence is clearly untenable as our detailed recitation of the facts has shown.

Doe v. Bridgeforth

2018 IL App (1st) 170182 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 31, 2018

This definition shall apply in any case where a ‘willful and wanton’ exception is incorporated into any immunity under this Act.” Id. … In either case, “[a] reviewing court ordinarily will not reverse a trial court for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.” Schultz v.

Urman v. Walter

101 Ill. App. 3d 1085 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 1981

As the court observed, “[plaintiff failed to establish that he had no alternative except to walk on the piling to get from one end to the other.” (Swendsen, 41 Ill. App. 3d 930, 933 , 355 N.E.2d 164, 166 .) … Clearly, the issue resolved in Swendsen has no bearing on the question of whether the lack of cribbing in the instant case is actionable under the statute.

People v. Roth

22 Ill. App. 2d 8 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 1959

Those letters were qualified for admission by the testimony of defendant’s wife that she was familiar with defendant’s handwriting, and that these letters were in his handwriting. … One such objection related to the persistence of the state’s attorney in establishing that the victim of the conspiracy had.a police guard in January, 1957. It seems far removed and inconsequential.

Peet v. Dolese & Shepard Co.

41 Ill. App. 2d 358 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 23, 1963

The defendant’s theory is that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the acts of the defendant caused the alleged damage and that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. … I would qualify my answer, and I don’t know the size of the blast, what it was at the time, but if there was an overcharge of an enormous amount of dynamite, it could or can react in the air as well as the ground.”

Mani Electrical Contractors v. Kioutas

243 Ill. App. 3d 662 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 19, 1993

In his 29-page “Findings of Fact, Opinion and Judgment,” the trial judge stated that there was no testimony from any source that established that the arrangement was illegal or violative of any Chicago ordinance. … In order for a finding to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent. Duncan, 204 Ill. App. 3d at 164 .