Case law

Brennan v. Wisconsin Central Limited

227 Ill. App. 3d 1070 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1992

Because Lippman is not a legal expert, he is not qualified to testify as to the legal applicability or legal substance of ICC standards. … Such evidence is insufficient to establish that Koepke and/or Callaway breached their duty to maintain a proper lookout.

Morrison v. Reckamp

294 Ill. App. 3d 1015 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 19, 1998

court should not disturb the trial court’s determination of instructions unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion. … In the present case, even if the trial court erred by refusing to admit the medical record, plaintiffs have not established how they were prejudiced by this error.

People v. Rich

2025 IL App (1st) 230818 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2025

¶ 13 Sergeant Robert Franks was qualified as an expert in the field of latent print preservation and recovery. … “To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the statute must clearly establish that it violates - 17 - No. 1-23-0818 the constitution.” People v.

Maness v. Santa Fe Park Enterprises

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 27, 1998

the racemeet for which this Pit Permit has been issued from all liability for personal injury or property damage whether arising from claims of negligence, gross negligence or any other cause, while preparing, practicing, qualifying … Count III was dismissed based upon the releases signed by Maness, which the court found to clearly absolve defendants from liability for negligent and grossly negligent acts.

In re Marriage of Burns

2019 IL App (2d) 180715 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 2019

” ¶ 10 In addition, Heather noted that, with certain qualifiers, she generally agreed that August could take one of the children for an evaluation on possible occupational therapy. … Heather did not clearly agree to any modifications to summer parenting time or transportation/exchange locations.

People v. Duff

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2007

The State notes circumstances “may be developed on cross-examination that lie ‘within the knowledge of the witness which explain, qualify or destroy’ the direct examination of the witness.” People v. … Contrary to the State’s contention, the co-defendant’s guilty plea was clearly admitted to establish the truth of the matter asserted, namely that the co-defendant had admitted guilt to the same crime defendant was charged

People v. Lake

298 Ill. App. 3d 50 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 18, 1998

Under section 14 of the Jury Act, a prospective juror who is a party to a suit pending for trial in that court is not qualified to sit as a juror and must be removed for cause. 705 ILCS 305/14 (West 1992). … In our view, the testimony that is quoted in the brief does not clearly indicate that juror Karnezis was a party to a pending suit at the time of the trial in the instant case.

Clay v. Brodsky

148 Ill. App. 3d 63 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1986

Gloria contacted Brodsky who performed a pregnancy test that established Gloria was pregnant. … Further, unwarranted immunity would thereby be extended to the medical profession if damages ensuing from improper treatment were to be denied.” 73 Ill. App. 3d 51, 63 , 391 N.E.2d 479, 488 .

In Re JW

325 Ill. Dec. 756 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 2008

The upshot of the doctor's testimony clearly establishes J.W.'s injuries may have been inflicted on J.W. the day before the doctor's examination. … Thus, the injuries clearly may have been inflicted when J.W. was with David at his parents' house.

Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 7, 2007

The trial court found that Stenstrom failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its Trade Secrets Act claim against Mesch "and/or" that it failed to establish that there is no adequate legal remedy … Information that is generally known or understood within an industry, even if not known to the public at large, does not qualify as a trade secret. Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v.

Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oehler's Home Care, Inc.

2019 IL App (4th) 190080 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 2021

Country Mutual further asserts that the term “use of an auto” has an established legal meaning and should be applied uniformly without regard to the type of policy at issue. … In short, when the provisions of a policy exclusion are unambiguous and clearly applicable—as here—courts should not hesitate to apply them.

People v. Saleh

2020 IL App (1st) 172979 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2020

In addition, photos taken of her “clearly” showed her injury, while no injury was noted on defendant. … “Such decisions enjoy a strong presumption that they reflect sound trial strategy, rather than incompetence [citation], and are, therefore, generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

People v. Christensen

197 Ill. App. 3d 807 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 1990

A “walk-through” is a procedure in which qualified defendants agree to plead guilty to the offense charged, and in return are not arrested, spend no time in jail, meet with the probation office, review and sign a probation … THE COURT: Well, that is, I understood that clearly. You are now ready to go, to have your cases heard? [DEFENDANT]: Yes.” (McMurray, 55 Ill. App. 3d at 585 , 371 N.E.2d at 49 .)

People v. Starks

432 Ill. Dec. 1014 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2019

However, Robinson clearly intended to merely provide examples of factors and to allow courts to consider others. … However, whether the State has established intent to deliver is resolved on a case-by-case basis, and the fact that evidence in one case is not as strong as that in other cases is not controlling.

Enbridge Energy, LLC v. Kuerth

2016 IL App (4th) 150519 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 15, 2017

IEPC alleged that Kelly and Summann were not professional appraisers qualified to provide expert opinions on the fair-market value of real estate. … App. 3d at 932, 877 N.E.2d at 22)—the existence of which establishes a prima facie case that a landowner must rebut with relevant evidence (Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.

Brannen v. Seifert

1 N.E.3d 1096 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 2013

The statute’s requirements were clearly met in this case. … Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to establish at trial that the LeFevours were solvent. ¶ 61 In order to sustain an action of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish facts supporting

People v. Gunn

2019 IL App (1st) 170542 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2020

Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d at 327. … As we noted above, matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d at 327.

Woodard v. Krans

234 Ill. App. 3d 690 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 1992

In medical malpractice cases, the applicable standard of care and its breach must normally be established through expert testimony. [Citations.] … Clearly, giving such testimony at trial does not constitute the exercise of a judicial function. *** Section 2 — 622 merely accelerates the time by which an expert opinion must be obtained.

People v. Payton

72 Ill. App. 2d 240 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1966

The appellant argues that it was reversible error to admit the testimony of Lodie Mae Swift because it was hearsay; and that, since the two defense witnesses were important in that they established an alibi for the appellant … Since none of the preliminary questions to qualify this evidence as impeaching evidence were asked, defense counsel would have no way of knowing that this evidence was offered as impeachment evidence, absent a statement by

First Bank of Roscoe v. Rinaldi

262 Ill. App. 3d 179 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 1994

A cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved that will entitle the plaintiff to recover. (People ex rel. Daley v. … We acknowledge that an ambiguity may be raised by the drafters’ omission of the qualifying language. (See, e.g., Contract Development Corp. v. Beck (1994), 255 Ill.