Case law

Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Ummach

228 Ill. App. 67 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 16, 1923

Under the law the offered evidence was clearly inadmissible and the court properly excluded it. … In order to establish the right of plaintiff to maintain this action, it would not be sufficient to establish merely the fact that it might benefit by the performance of the contract as between Edwards and Ummach.

State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago

287 Ill. App. 3d 904 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1997

The parties further stipulated that John Barrett was qualified to render an expert opinion as a land developer and general contractor, Terrance O’Brien was qualified to render an expert opinion as a real estate appraiser, … Anthony McNamara was qualified to render an expert opinion as a registered professional engineer, and Stephen E.

People v. Banks

378 Ill. App. 3d 856 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 19, 2007

If the record presented does not clearly establish that error was committed, it will be presumed that the order entered was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis, and the defendant will lose on the … The mention of reasonable doubt in the postjudgment motion does not qualify as an explicit statement regarding whether defendant was not guilty.

People v. Evans

60 N.E.3d 77 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 2016

He's told us very clearly he's not going to answer any more questions. THE COURT: He did answer some questions. … The mere potential for a mistrial is not enough to establish that the trial court abused its discretion.

Howell v. Edelen

66 Ill. App. 3d 437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 1978

To qualify for the tax deed under section 266, a tax purchaser or his assignee must serve notices as provided in sections 263 and 266 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 120, par. 744, 747). … Petitioners contend fraud was established in the present case since the tax deed was issued upon false testimony and a lack of due diligence.

RESURRECTION LUTH. CH. v. Dept. of Rev.

212 Ill. App. 3d 964 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1991

Each individual claim for tax exemption must be determined from the facts presented, the one claiming an exemption has the burden of proving clearly and conclusively that it is entitled to exempt status. ( People ex rel. … In order to qualify for a property tax exemption on charitable grounds, the taxpayer must show that the property was owned by a charitable organization and was exclusively used for charitable purposes. ( Northwestern Memorial

Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp.

51 Ill. App. 3d 296 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1977

The consequences and last event in both Nelson and Gray clearly took place in Illinois. … I do not think plaintiffs have established a proper basis for jurisdiction in Illinois.

Schmidt v. The Illinois State Board of Elections

68 N.E.3d 950 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 2016

Additionally, where the “facts are admitted or established and the only dispute concerns whether the governing legal provisions were interpreted correctly,” we apply a de novo standard of review. Id. ¶ 20. … Moeller’s conduct clearly violated the restriction set forth in section 8-8 against signing petitions or being a candidate in the primary of more than one party.

People v. Heizer

71 Ill. App. 2d 6 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 1966

Wills, a qualified surveyor, testified on behalf of the defendant that he would be able to survey the area and locate all its boundaries by interpreting the description as a whole. … The published notice clearly gave the County Court of Randolph County jurisdiction over all persons located in the district and specifically jurisdiction over the relators in this proceeding.

Compton v. Country Mutual Insurance

382 Ill. App. 3d 323 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 29, 2008

In his motion to reconsider, the plaintiff alleged that he could plead facts establishing that Founders’ settlement check exceeded the amount of Country Mutual’s lien. … However, these “facts” do not qualify as “newly discovered evidence.” Newly discovered evidence is evidence that was not available prior to the first hearing. Gardner v.

People v. Anderson

2026 IL App (1st) 200462-C · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 23, 2026

Thus, there is no support for the suggestion that defendant’s prior testimony could ever qualify as a judicial admission. … Yet it is well-established that bias requires more than merely adverse findings. See Eychaner v.

People v. Garlin

101 Ill. App. 3d 716 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 1981

After having been qualified to testify as a fingerprint expert, Wise stated that, in his opinion, the latent print taken from the toy bank was the left ring finger of the defendant. … The identity of defendant was clearly an issue in the case, and the fingerprint card was properly admitted to prove this issue. In addition, we note that defendant’s allegation of prejudice is speculative.

Knapp v. Palos Community Hospital

125 Ill. App. 3d 244 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 1984

In order that a preliminary injunction may issue, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a certain and clearly ascertained right needs protection, (2) irreparable injury will occur without … The plaintiffs further allege that their right to regular procedures as established by custom, usage and practice has been violated.

Violetta B. v. Stanciel

210 Ill. App. 3d 521 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 1991

The close relative must then agree to and subsequently participate in and be qualified in a complete review by the Department. … The record clearly establishes that from the first time he was asked, Leo maintained that a transfer of custody was not in the best interest of the child.

Fabian v. BGC Holdings, LP

2014 IL App (1st) 141576 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2015

The circuit court determined that the plaintiff had not established that the forum-selection clause was so seriously inconvenient that he would be deprived his day in court or that the location of the … Additionally, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Webster, Troy and BGC Partners, Inc., and they were “voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.” ¶ 13 Clearly the dismissal

Northwest Suburban Special Education Organization v. Industrial Commission

312 Ill. App. 3d 783 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 29, 2000

Given our prior rulings and the circumstances as presented, clearly claimant cannot satisfy the mental-mental criteria to justify compensation in this instance. … App. 3d 720, 724 (1999): “The presence of a physical trauma, not an employee’s subjective physical reaction to some nonphysical incident, determines whether a case qualifies as a ‘physical-mental’ case.”

American Family Insurance Group v. Cleveland

356 Ill. App. 3d 945 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2005

American Family appeals the judgment in favor of Cleveland on count I, arguing that it has clearly established that it is entitled to subrogation. … American Family had no obligation to pay Cleveland’s medical bills unless Cleveland qualified under the medical payments provision of the policy, including the requirement that subrogation be allowed.

People v. Floyd

262 Ill. App. 3d 49 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 1994

The evidence that defendant brandished a handgun could qualify defendant as the initial aggressor. (See People v. Denson (1985), 139 Ill. … Clearly, the jury could conclude that defendant’s actions provoked that response. The jury was instructed in accordance with defendant’s theory of self-defense.

Jacobs v. Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc.

2017 IL App (1st) 151107 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 18, 2017

The yellow paint and logos would be affixed by a “qualified shop” rather than by YCA. … Regulations about vehicle appearance helped make cabs uniform and clearly identifiable as cabs to Chicago consumers.

Stuckey v. Renaissance at Midway

2015 IL App (1st) 143111 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 5, 2016

Renaissance therefore asked the circuit court to deny plaintiff's motion to compel, as the "applicable statutes and relevant Illinois case law clearly establish that Defendant cannot produce information or documentation … We conclude that they clearly do.