Case law

Willis v. Khatkhate

373 Ill. App. 3d 495 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 2007

Plaintiff contends that the allegations in her complaint and the evidence contained in the supporting documents establish that Dr. … Plaintiff contends that this establishes a negligent treatment scenario, which is not immunized as stated under subsections 6 — 106(b), (c), and (d) of the Tort Immunity Act. 745 ILCS 10/6 — 106(b), (c), (d) (West 1998).

Courson v. Danville School District No. 118

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 1998

Those cases are different from this one because they clearly involved the making of a choice, a policy choice, and not mere inad­ver­tence. … It is sufficient to note that the District is not entitled to summary judgment, because it has not established that the failure to provide the saw guard was a discretionary act. Reversed and remanded.

Meyer v. Department of Public Aid

392 Ill. App. 3d 31 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2009

In the present case, the plaintiff clearly seeks a monetary judgment against the Department. … To prove the tort of conversion, a plaintiff must establish that he or she: (1) had a right to the converted property; (2) had an absolute and unconditional right to its immediate possession; (3) demanded its possession from

Razavi v. School of the Art Institute of Chicago

2018 IL App (1st) 171409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2019

To establish defamation, plaintiff must show that defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff and published the statement to a third party, causing damage. Anderson v. Beach, 386 Ill. … Where only a qualified privilege is granted, the person making the statment is immune from liability unless some element, such as malice, is present.

Vincent v. Dept. of Human Services

392 Ill. App. 3d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2009

Congress further provided that the rule applies “whether or not the medicaid qualifying trust is irrevocable or is established for purposes other than to enable a grantor to qualify for medical assistance *** or *** whether … Given these facts, we cannot say that the Department’s finding that the invoice was not “exclusively for a reason other than to qualify for assistance” was clearly erroneous.

Swett v. Village of Algonquin

169 Ill. App. 3d 78 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 1988

Act (the Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … The village contends the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to establish a duty owed by it under either the common law, the Tort Immunity Act, or the Illinois Highway Code.

Nichol v. Stass

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1998

employment status for sovereign immunity purposes. … Clearly, the duty to comply with Department of Children and Family Service rules and regulations would not exist outside of the relationship between the State and the foster parents.

Kozik v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

2025 IL App (1st) 242219 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 9, 2025

Each statute stands “in its own sphere” and the immunities provided by the Vehicle Code and the Tort Immunity Act serve different purposes (internal quotation marks omitted)); Young v. Forgas, 308 Ill. … ¶ 78 Here, the statute and the rule clearly serve very different purposes.

Shores v. Senior Manor Nursing Center, Inc.

164 Ill. App. 3d 503 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 6, 1988

Thus, plaintiff has invoked a clearly mandated public policy. … Because this section broadly, states that immunity is provided to anyone participating in the making of “a report,” it would appear to provide immunity to those who report to a facility administrator even though a report

Henry County Board v. Village of Orion

278 Ill. App. 3d 1058 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1996

The decision of the trial court is against the manifest weight of the evidence if a review of the record clearly establishes that the decision opposite to the one reached by the trial court was the proper result. … We find the record does not support that Orion established obsolete platting.

Leonardi v. Chicago Transit Authority

341 Ill. App. 3d 1038 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2003

She cites section 3 — 102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act of Act) (745 ILCS 10/3— 102(a) (West 2000)). … To qualify as a lease contract, “there must be agreement as to the extent and bounds of the property, the rental price and time and manner of payment, and the term of the lease.” Ceres Illinois, Inc. v.

Walker v. Cronin

165 Ill. App. 3d 846 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1987

Section 2 — 1303’s term “other governmental entity” is in no way qualified. Public Act 80 — 722, however, is limited by its terms to local governmental entities. (See City of Springfield v. … Thus the State has waived its immunity in this instance by legislative act.

O'Malley v. Village of Palos Park

346 Ill. App. 3d 567 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 23, 2004

These employees held “Computer Operator I” positions at Cook County Hospital and they were hired before the examination requirement was established. … The minutes of the November 10, 1997, Village Board meeting clearly establish that the Board approved the development plan “subject to the confirmation that the 1994 extension to the annexation agreement was in order.”

Gresham v. Kirby

229 Ill. App. 3d 952 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 1992

from liability under section 3 — 104 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act) (Ill. … The agreement clearly obligated the Town to construct the improvements according to the plans, but nothing in the language gave the Town the authority to erect traffic control devices at the intersection of College Avenue

Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Teachers Insurance Co.

312 Ill. App. 3d 566 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 4, 2000

(West 1998)) and the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2 — 301 (West 1998)) 1 to indemnify and defend the lawsuit brought against Chapman and that this remains … In the absence of any statutory language qualifying that mandate, the statute must be construed to require primary coverage.” State Farm, 182 Ill. 2d at 246 .

Ramos v. Waukegan Community Unit School District No. 60

188 Ill. App. 3d 1031 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 2, 1989

Tort Immunity Act. … We decline to follow Brock as there is clearly a distinction between a complaint which alleges negligence by a teacher in the supervision of a student and one which alleges negligence of a property owner in the maintenance

Acevedo v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board

2019 IL App (1st) 181128 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2019

Acevedo also argued that the Tort Immunity Act did not bar his current claims because the void decision of the Board could be attacked at any time, his claims did not sound in tort, and the Tort Immunity Act … The complaint should be dismissed only if it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Id. at 349.

Board of Education of the City of Peoria, School District No. 150 v. Sanders

150 Ill. App. 3d 755 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 1986

Senn Park and City of Springfield establish that the plaintiff’s request was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and thus was properly brought in the circuit court. … Section 22 — 19 clearly recites the powers which the legislature intended the ISBE to have. (Aurora East Public School District No. 131 v. Cronin (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 313, 328 .)

Doe Ex Rel. Ortega-Prion v. BD. OF EDUC.

339 Ill. App. 3d 848 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 2003

Regarding section 2-615, the Board argued that plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to establish willful and wanton *1287 misconduct. … Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides in pertinent part: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service

Nichols v. City of Chicago Heights

2015 IL App (1st) 122994 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 9, 2015

Act rendered the City immune from plaintiffs’ claims, and because plaintiffs’ negligence claims under the theory of res ipsa loquitur failed where indisputable facts established that the city was not in exclusive … Immunity Act.”