Case law

Gallagher v. Union Square Condominium Homeowner's Ass'n

397 Ill. App. 3d 1037 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 27, 2010

We conclude that the plain language of the Act does not provide immunity for injuries sustained on driveways. … Nor did it establish a test for determining whether surfaces not encompassed in the plain meaning of the term “sidewalk” nevertheless constitute a sidewalk for purposes of the Act.

People v. McCoy

2026 IL App (1st) 231052 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 3, 2026

And in fairness, our own cases are not entirely immune from this error. In Westefer, 169 Ill. … So defendant has established error and deficient performance. ¶ 84 But defendant cannot establish prejudice from these errors.

People v. Quezada

467 Ill. Dec. 489 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2022

¶ 30 In closing arguments, the State noted, in part, that “Maschek clearly says he heard ‘F*** the police’ ” before the shots were fired. … Salas clearly did not qualify as an accomplice. Even if she held the gun when it was being passed around, without possessing a FOID card, those actions had nothing to do with the second shooting.

Grandalski v. Lyons Township HS Dist. 204

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1999

665 N.E.2d at 815 ), the court first explained that "[s]ection 2--202 is not a general exception to all of the other immunities established by the Tort Immunity Act." … Section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act It is well established that the School Code and the Tort Immunity Act are to be interpreted independently of each other. Bowers v.

The City of Kankakee v. Department of Revenue

988 N.E.2d 723 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 2013

¶ 46 Original Jurisdiction ¶ 47 The circuit court held that even absent jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Law, “the decision of the Department is clearly subject … Thus, sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against the State in state court unless the legislature has waived the immunity. People ex rel. Manning v.

Starks v. Shaw

2023 IL App (4th) 220748-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 21, 2023

¶ 64 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For a right to be “clearly established” within the context of qualified immunity, it must be sufficiently clear that a - 21 - reasonable official would understand what

Szczerbaniuk v. Memorial Hospital for McHenry County

180 Ill. App. 3d 706 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 1989

Insofar as section 10.2 clearly contemplates action by committees, we are hesitant to apply it to immunize conduct of an individual acting only pursuant to an informal delegation of authority by an uninformed committee. … Clearly no such committee participated in the decision with respect to plaintiff.

Madden v. Kuehn

56 Ill. App. 3d 997 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 9, 1978

Kuehn based their motion on the ground that the State and its officials are immune from suits. … The second rule is the doctrine of “Public Officials Immunity,” which provides that State and other public officials are immune from liability for acts falling within their official discretion. E.g., Mora v.

Hernandez v. Kirksey

306 Ill. App. 3d 912 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1999

Section 4 — 102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides in pertinent part: “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service … App. 3d 639, 642 , 606 N.E.2d 273 (1992) (“reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented”).

Bridgman v. Sanitary District of Decatur

164 Ill. App. 3d 287 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 1987

Section 3 provides in part: “The general purpose and intent of this Act is to establish a means of reviewing potential water conflicts before damage to any person is incurred and to establish a rule for mitigating water shortage … conflicts by: * * * (b) Establishing a ‘reasonable use’ rule for groundwater withdrawals.”

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 2000

The de minimis activities of an out-of-state corporation would not cause the corporation to lose its tax immunity unless those activities established "a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State." … Bajorski , 635 A.2d 771 (Conn. 1993), did the act of qualifying to do business in a state result in the corporation acquiring a physical presence in the State.

Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2007

Immunity under the Act qualifies as an affirmative matter properly raised in a section 2-619 motion to dismiss. Arteman v. … defendant in that case had established a fire department with emergency services.

People v. Davis

458 Ill. Dec. 359 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2021

¶ 55 Applying the framework established by our supreme court in Healy v. … Davis to seek reimbursement for any qualified expenditure she made within the annual appropriation authorized under the office allowance statute. Rep.

Krueger v. Lewis

359 Ill. App. 3d 515 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2005

Defendant charged that plaintiff, “in her capacity as a Village Trustee, *** had accepted a bribe to establish a [tax increment financing] district in the Village of Lyons, and that [p]laintiff was pocketing money from developers … Accordingly, we reject plaintiffs argument that a witness must be under oath to qualify for this privilege.

Adames v. Sheahan

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 29, 2007

The manual clearly reads that removing the magazine does not clear a loaded chamber. … Section 7903(5)(A) defines a “qualified civil liability action” as “a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade

Tosado v. Miller

293 Ill. App. 3d 544 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 3, 1997

Section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act clearly provides that local governmental units and their employees are not subject to suit beyond a one-year period. … It is well-established in Illinois that if there are two statutory provisions, one general and the other particular, the particular provision must prevail.

Monat v. County of Cook

322 Ill. App. 3d 499 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 2001

The court grounded its judgment on findings that Monat would need to violate the forest preserve code to take his horses into the nearby forest and that the “general consensus of the neighborhood is clearly against the idea … Defendants argue that Monat’s motion to vacate the trial court’s order did not toll the time for appeal because it did not qualify as a proper posttrial motion.

Kiersch v. Ogena

230 Ill. App. 3d 57 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1992

The Court of Claims Act established the Court of Claims and endowed it with the exclusive jurisdiction to hear certain matters, including the following: ‘(d) All claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort … Stat. 1989, ch. 127, par. 1302(d)) speaks of findings made by “the court or jury,” thereby clearly indicating that the legislature contemplated that actions against State employees for damages, for which the State would be

Doe v. Lawrence Hall Youth Services

966 N.E.2d 52 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 26, 2012

furtherance of the business interests of Defendant Lawrence Hall Youth Services.” ¶ 11 Regarding the applicability of the Illinois School Code to the case at bar, the court found: “The evidence clearly … 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. Canel v.

Meyer v. Department of Public Aid

392 Ill. App. 3d 31 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2009

In the present case, the plaintiff clearly seeks a monetary judgment against the Department. … To prove the tort of conversion, a plaintiff must establish that he or she: (1) had a right to the converted property; (2) had an absolute and unconditional right to its immediate possession; (3) demanded its possession from