Case law

People v. Cole

84 Ill. App. 3d 347 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 1980

The evidence at trial established that defendant was serving a 2- to 10-year sentence for burglary at the Peoria Community Correctional Center. … However, section 3-13-4(b) clearly refers only to unauthorized absences in connection with work or day release, not those resulting from failure to return from furlough.

US BANK NAT. ASS'N v. Manzo

356 Ill. Dec. 115 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2011

It follows that since rescission is automatic upon notification, notification must be clear and cannot be conditional or qualified. See Golliday, 2009 WL 5216141 , at *2 (citing Williams v. … They inserted the qualifying language—it was not imposed upon them.

Niles Township High School District 219 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

387 Ill. App. 3d 58 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2008

Standard of Review “[T]he 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.” … Thus, both cases were affirmations, based on a clearly erroneous standard of review.

Henderson v. City of Chicago Department of Business Affairs & Consumer Protection

2023 IL App (1st) 221705-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2023

In paragraph 7 of the report, the commissioner found that Henderson had failed to establish the requisite unique or unusual circumstances necessary to qualify for an adjustment. … The commissioner’s determination that Henderson did not establish unique or unusual circumstances was not clearly erroneous on the facts presented in paragraph 7.

Henderson v. City of Chicago Dept. of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection

2023 IL App (1st) 221705-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2023

In paragraph 7 of the report, the commissioner found that Henderson had failed to establish the requisite unique or unusual circumstances necessary to qualify for an adjustment. … The commissioner’s determination that Henderson did not establish unique or unusual circumstances was not clearly erroneous on the facts presented in paragraph 7.

Stroh v. Blackhawk Holding Corp.

117 Ill. App. 2d 301 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 5, 1969

No agreement was established whereby anyone was to be paid for voting in a particular way. A premium may have been paid for the Class B stock. … Agreements are not held to be void, as being contrary to public policy, unless they be clearly contrary to what the constitution, the statutes or the decisions of the courts have declared to be the public policy or unless

Marion Hospital Corp. v. Illinois Health Facilities Planning Bd. Opinion text corrected

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

He attested to the frustration he himself experienced when, two years earlier, he partially amputated his thumb and had to leave the area for surgery as no orthopedic surgeon in the area felt qualified to perform the procedure … The language of the regulation clearly states that the Board will grant an applicant a permit "only if" one of certain enumerated conditions is met.

Hale v. Ault

83 Ill. App. 3d 78 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1980

In substance, the allegations by the Aults were that Hales were clearly in default. … Fisher (1970), 46 Ill.2d 249 , 263 N.E.2d 833 ), but the ultimate determination is one of possession, a quantum of estate far less than title. • 2 Hale I, then, established only a right to possession, and Hale II established

People v. Lann

261 Ill. App. 3d 456 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1994

Accordingly, defendant has waived the issue. 2 We agree with defendant, however, that despite his waiver, the unique circumstances of this case qualify for our recognizing the gender discrimination issue under the "plain … Any attempt to make a record here, or persist in his claim where the law was clearly to the contrary, would have been, at the time, a waste of resources.

Rigoli v. Manor Care of Oak Lawn (West) IL, LLC

2019 IL App (1st) 191635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 16, 2019

The court held: “Plaintiff’s Affidavit is sufficient because affiant, David Seignious, MD (‘Affiant’) is a person qualified to give trial testimony due to his professional standing. … . *** *** The Affiant *** clearly indicates the dates of treatment and treating facilities of the medical records he reviewed, which included the day of Lucille’s admission and

Chicago Fire Brick Co. v. General Roofing Manufacturing Co.

133 Ill. App. 269 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 15, 1907

Louis to establish and enforce a lien for building tile and other material sold and delivered to appellee and by it used in the construction of a building on the premises described in the bill. … The instrument, order or letter, whichever it may be termed, clearly amounts to a proposition based upon verbal negotiations between the duly authorized representatives of the two companies, appellant and appellee.

People v. Casciaro

49 N.E.3d 39 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 2015

Shane Lamb’s Testimony ¶ 36 The following was established through Lamb’s testimony at the second trial. … On redirect examination, Donohue clarified that he was testifying to what Lamb had said, which he clearly remembered.

Bangaly v. Baggiani

2014 IL App (1st) 123760 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2014

His proficiency in the area is clearly evident. … His proficiency in the area is clearly evident.

People v. Allen

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 1997

However, words need only be likely to incite violence, not actually produce violence, to qualify as fighting words. See People of the City of Pontiac v. Klein , 67 Mich. … We reverse defendant's conviction on count V because the evidence failed to establish where or when the conduct underlying count V occurred.

People v. Williams

210 Ill. Dec. 704 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1995

It is well established, however, that where a witness is impeached by prior inconsistent statements that took place in a conversation, the opponent to the impeachment may bring out all of the prior conversation to qualify … In addition, the record amply establishes that defendant’s actions were premeditated. Moreover, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in any aspect of this case.

Parrillo, Weiss & Moss v. Cashion

181 Ill. App. 3d 920 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1989

It is the established law of Illinois that statements made during quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged (Kalisk v. Illinois Education Association (1987), 157 Ill. … The Department of Insurance clearly has jurisdiction over Safeway Insurance Company and would be concerned about the alleged problems noted in the letter.

People v. Kent

111 Ill. App. 3d 733 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 1982

and this is common knowledge and I think we all know, that under the time when he worked for the coroner’s office, the office was not run very efficiently, there were many people connected with that office that were not qualified … The statements of the trial judge in this case clearly indicate that personal knowledge was considered in assessing the credentials and credibility of Dr. Petty. We are left with no doubt that the credibility of Dr.

People v. Harris

239 N.E.3d 693 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

This is consistent with the well-established principle that we must interpret statutes, if possible, to preserve their constitutionality. Id. at 22. … Since the trial court ultimately treated defendant’s criminal history as a mitigating factor, defendant was clearly not prejudiced by this language.

People v. Barnes

117 Ill. App. 3d 965 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1983

The Illinois Supreme Court has clearly set out the elements that comprise a dying declaration (see People v. … We have already established that the victim’s statements were properly allowed into evidence as dying declarations.

People v. Warner

176 Ill. App. 3d 868 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 21, 1988

Instead, the court found that the section as amended now allowed for service upon the child’s legal guardian or custodian to establish jurisdiction. … The supreme court, quoting from debates in the House of Representatives, found that this interpretation w;as clearly consistent with the intent of the legislature.