Case law

People v. Dempsey

242 Ill. App. 3d 568 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 1993

Defendant’s conduct clearly fell within the proscription of the statute. … Clearly, these improper factors were significant elements in the defendant’s sentences.

People v. Hoover

87 Ill. App. 3d 743 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 19, 1980

Defendant similarly does not object to the foundation which was laid to qualify Casey as an expert in the examination of questioned documents. … In the instant case, the evidence in support of the finding of guilt was clearly satisfactory and, thus, we would be unjustified in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the weight of the evidence. People v.

Henry v. Waller

975 N.E.2d 93 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2012

. ¶ 16 Applying these principles to the present case, the indemnification agreement clearly and unambiguously requires Waller to indemnify Bank of America for “any and all” attorney fees and expenses it … The “subsequent conversion” by Olson did not immunize Bank of America from being sued by Ms.

Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 54 v. Spangler

328 Ill. App. 3d 747 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 2002

Spangler’s teaching”; (17) Not qualified to teach — “[T]his is a mixed bag. His letters do exhibit sarcasm and hostility, but these too do not squarely bear on his ability as a teacher.” … If the legislature intended to leave any discretion or determination with the local board, it clearly would have said so. It did not.

City of Oakbrook Terrace v. Suburban Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2006

App. 3d 148, 153 (1982) (power over sovereign immunity); County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d at 514-15 (environmental control); People ex rel. Lignoul v. … Where an affidavit asserts an opinion, it must first qualify as expert testimony. Go-Tane Service Stations, Inc. v. Sharp, 78 Ill. App. 3d 785, 789 (1979).

People v. Bosley

197 Ill. App. 3d 215 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 1990

The addition of subsection (c) clearly did nothing to mitigate the punishment applicable to the defendant at the time of the offenses. … Moreover, appendix A does not qualify as a citation of relevant authority in support of the defendant’s argument on appeal. (113 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7).)

Scott v. Assurance Co. of America

253 Ill. App. 3d 813 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 16, 1993

The years during which plaintiff did agency billing (1976 to September 1, 1991) constitute a course of dealing between the parties which establishes a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expressions and other … A course of dealing gives particular meaning to and supplements or qualifies terms of an agreement. (810 ILCS 5/1 — 205(3) (West 1992).)

McKasson v. Zimmer Manufacturing Co.

12 Ill. App. 3d 429 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 8, 1973

Defendants’ expert, qualified both in the fields of metallurgy and mechanical engineering, testified that fracture of the rod occurred as a result of fatigue failure. … The court’s response to the objection clearly stated that it held no: opinion on the evidence.

Patterson v. City of Chicago

2025 IL App (1st) 241716-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2025

-4-  No. 1-24-1716 ¶ 16 Res ipsa loquitur is “a rule of evidence relating to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s proof to establish a defendant … This burden-shifting inference is incompatible with the plain language of the statute, which “clearly refers to the plaintiff’s burden” to prove actual or constructive notice. (Emphasis in original.)

People v. Davis

2025 IL App (3d) 230569-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 30, 2025

¶9 The driver of the vehicle, Opiola, was granted immunity from prosecution by the State and compelled to testify after asserting his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. … The charges clearly demonstrate the State’s intent to treat defendant’s conduct as separate acts, as one is based on possession of a firearm and the other is based on possession of firearm ammunition.

Miller v. Miller

268 Ill. App. 3d 132 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 1994

order; (2) he lacked sufficient notice of the 1986 proceeding and the 1993 nonwage garnishment; (3) the garnishment is invalid because the 1986 judgment was not revived within seven years; and (4) the spendthrift trust was immune … Section 12—1680 of the Arizona URESA statute clearly contemplates entry of concurrent or consecutive support orders.

Nudi Auto RV & Boat Sales, Inc. v. John Deere Insurance

328 Ill. App. 3d 523 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2002

In Dan Pilson Auto Center, the court held: “Palmeri, the seller, had no title at all” where the “[e]vidence clearly established that Pilson never transferred the certificates of title for the squad cars” and “[b]oth parties … As such, whether Nudi qualifies as a buyer of the cars in the ordinary course of business does not matter.

Williams v. Estate of Cole

393 Ill. App. 3d 771 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 2009

Since petitioner "failed to establish even a threshold basis" for her petition, the trial court here properly denied the petition without transfer of the hearing to another judge. … Therefore, because the statute clearly and unambiguously provides that a judge other than the judge named in the petition shall conduct a hearing to determine whether cause exists to substitute the judge named in the petition

In re Adoption of C.D.

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2000

The grandparents argue that these factors establish that it is in C.D.'s best interests to be placed with them and not the foster parents. … The consent to adopt in favor of Bonnie does not qualify under section (c). Therefore, the circuit court did not err when it found Tina D.'s consent to adopt invalid. III.

Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC

461 Ill. Dec. 677 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 2022

As we have acknowledged, this line of cases establishing an “other property” requirement has been criticized by some commentators. Viking, 358 Ill. … ” can be a reference to the Association’s own property in the common areas, and there are no allegations that would clearly exclude coverage.

People v. Brady

308 Ill. Dec. 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 2007

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the validity of the statute has the burden to clearly establish its constitutional invalidity. People v. Wilson, 214 Ill. 2d 394, 398-99 (2005). … Defendant’s conduct in this case clearly invoked the duties of section 11 — 401.

People v. Drain

236 N.E.3d 56 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 3, 2023

Clearly, the dog indicated on the vehicle[,] which gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle.” … Decisions regarding which witnesses to call or what evidence to present are matters of trial strategy that are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v.

People v. Hannah E.

376 Ill. App. 3d 648 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 28, 2007

A person is subject to involuntary commitment if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a mental illness and, because of her illness, she is “ ‘reasonably expected to inflict serious physical … Our review of the evidence presented at trial clearly supports the court’s conclusion that continued hospitalization was the least restrictive alternative for respondent. See, e.g., Lisa G.C., 373 Ill.

Jay v. United Defense Industries, Inc.

162 Ill. App. 3d 1071 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 1987

United argues that the contract of sale was unambiguous and clearly delineated the liabilities it accepted. … is qualified by the specific language of paragraph 7.

McCullough v. Knight

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 1997

The city cites several Supreme Court cases that trace the evolution of the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment and establish the appropriate framework for analyzing this issue. … See Immunization & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza , 468 U.S. 1032 , 82 L. Ed. 2d 778 , 104 S. Ct. 3479 (1984); Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 ; United States v.