Case law

People v. Feld

204 Ill. Dec. 494 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 11, 1994

The defendants claim that the Drug Act is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide fair notice to potential offenders as to what characteristics various items must possess to qualify as illegal paraphernalia. … The State never established that any illicit "unstated” marketing strategy in fact existed, much less that the defendants participated in it.

People v. Cavette

2018 IL App (4th) 150910 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 2019

Arbiter stated she could clearly see it was a silver and black gun. She called the police. ¶7 Lane testified he saw defendant pull up in a car and step out. Lane invited defendant into his apartment. … Defendant’s sister testified she observed others at Lane’s earlier the same day. ¶ 10 The parties stipulated defendant “was previously convicted of two prior qualifying offenses under the armed habitual criminal

Allstate Insurance v. Skawinski

40 Ill. App. 2d 136 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 21, 1963

These words in the policy qualify and limit the policy obligations of plaintiff under Part 1 of Section 1. … The cases clearly indicate that the term "use" is not to be limited to driving the vehicle.

Baksh v. Human Rights Commission

304 Ill. App. 3d 995 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 1999

Since at least September 1986, G.S. had been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the causative agent of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … G.S. testified that the telephone call occurred on September 22, 1986, and he explained why the telephone call had such a substantial impact on him and why he remembered it so clearly.

Sola v. City of Chicago

82 Ill. App. 2d 266 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 9, 1967

“The Contractor shall employ and assign to work on this contract only, a qualified technical engineer satisfactory to the Chief Engineer, to act as contact man with the Engineer and to set and maintain the lines and grades … Defendant cites several cases which hold that mere ownership is insufficient to establish liability under the Act. Valley v. United States, 230 F Supp 674 ; Campione v. Henry C.

In Re Barnard

247 Ill. App. 3d 234 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 1993

I would like to be able to qualify for orphan foster care." Dr. … Respondent also urges that there was never a nexus of timeliness established between the doctors' perception of respondent and any real or projected dangerousness.

Leroy K.D. v. Nicole B.

456 Ill. Dec. 70 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 2021

paternity, that Nicole was R.D.’s maternal aunt, that R.D. had lived with Nicole since Adrienne had passed away, that R.D. was a minor who was in need of a guardian, and that Nicole was the most suitable and best qualified … Despite that fact, however, the Minnesota trial court was clearly informed during the guardianship proceeding about Crystal’s status as R.D.’s short-term guardian.

People v. McBounds

182 Ill. App. 3d 1002 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 1989

Stern stated that Moore would not testify unless he was granted immunity from perjury. … Before reversing a sentence imposed by the trial court, it must be clearly evident that the sentence was improper. (People v. Ward, 113 Ill. 2d 516 , 499 N.E.2d 422 .)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

2015 IL App (1st) 140447 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 22, 2015

Appeals in Wallace believed the two sentence definition of relative must be read in the disjunctive, as Progressive argues, the court wasted its time and analysis in determining that the State Farm policy ‘clearly … and unambiguously established a mandatory requisite of proving residency to enable UIM coverage.’ ” However, in Wallace, no argument was made that the teenaged child was away at school.

Community Merchant Services, Inc. v. Jonas

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2004

Here, the trial court’s conclusion was not only an abuse of discretion but was also clearly erroneous. … A protective order was needed to give Jonas immunity from personal service, and since one was not in place, service was proper.

Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company

2017 IL App (1st) 162808 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 16, 2018

established Gilsbar was no longer the [third-party administrator] after May 31, 2011. … Furthermore, the parties clearly drew a distinction between a fee and a commission by choosing to use both terms in separate provisions of exhibit A.

Allstate Insurance v. Amato

372 Ill. App. 3d 139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2007

“The insurer bears the burden of establishing that a claim falls within a provision that limits or excludes coverage.” Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Acceptance Insurance Co., 342 Ill. … Clearly, the holding of General does not apply to this case.

People v. Watson

244 Ill. App. 3d 31 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 1991

The standard for determining the voluntariness of a statement is well established. In People v. … However, that case did qualify the de novo standard of review.

People v. Hopkins

2025 IL App (5th) 250691-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 2025

The evidence, therefore, established that the presumption is great that the defendant committed aggravated discharge of a firearm and unlawful possession of a weapon, both qualifying detainable offenses under the statute … An opposite conclusion is not clearly evident, or the finding itself is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.

R.L. Vollintine Construction, Inc. v. The Illinois Capital Development Board

19 N.E.3d 741 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 29, 2014

¶ 26 Section 1 of the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (Immunity Act) provides that "[e]xcept as provided in the *** Claims Act *** the State of Illinois shall not be made a defend- ant or party in any court." 745 … ¶ 27 The Claims Act created an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity under section 1 of the Immunity Act by permitting parties to raise monetary claims against the State in the Court of Claims.

Metz v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board

231 Ill. App. 3d 1079 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 1992

The record clearly indicates that respondent’s answer was file-stamped as “received” on April 19, 1990, and the hearing officer found that respondent’s answer was filed on this date. … The Board responds that the unfair labor practice complaint in the instant case clearly apprised the charged party of the nature of the unfair labor practice violations alleged.

People v. Holmes

234 Ill. App. 3d 931 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1992

It is clear that all of these witnesses were qualified to testify as bite mark experts. … In this case, it is clear that Harris was not qualified to testify about the identity of the footprint.

Fanady v. Israelov

2025 IL App (1st) 240419-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 2025

alleged in their complaint that the attorney’s actions were taken “in furtherance of” and for ‘the benefit of” his client, and therefore the absolute litigation privilege applied because “the allegations in the complaint establish … furtherance of, anticipated and pending divorce proceedings”); O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 29 (finding that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the absolute litigation privilege because the defendants’ actions “clearly

People v. Munoz-Salgado

2016 IL App (2d) 140325 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2016

In order to qualify as “testimonial,” a witness’s statement must be (1) made in a solemn fashion and (2) intended to establish a particular fact. … A medical examination was clearly both necessary and appropriate to ascertain whether J.L. suffered any injuries and whether treatment was necessary.

People v. Guerrero

2018 IL App (3d) 170786 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2019

“It is quintessentially the duty of counsel to provide her client with available advice about an issue like deportation, and the failure to do so ‘clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis … As such, we conclude the probation operations assistance assessment qualifies as a fine, created to generate a fund to support probation and court services, regardless of a defendant’s actual