Case law

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.

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

Johnson v. Chicago Transit Authority

366 Ill. App. 3d 867 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2006

clearly foreshadowed. … established precedent that a plaintiff must strictly comply with section 41.

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.

Ellison v. Village of Northbrook

209 Ill. Dec. 86 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1995

Instead, plaintiff claims the timing sequence as established was not proper and the intersection was thereby rendered unsafe. … This testimony clearly establishes that the State is responsible for the design of the devices as well as the establishment of the timing sequence of the lights.

Tabora v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

279 Ill. App. 3d 108 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1996

As stated earlier, plaintiff first contends that defendants have not established statutory immunity from civil damages arising from their actions in revoking plaintiff’s privileges. … With these principles in mind, we turn to plaintiff s argument that defendants have failed to establish statutory immunity.

Cosey v. Metro East Sanitary District

221 Ill. App. 3d 205 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 14, 1991

Thus, the court held “[t]he potential for tort liability [against the employer] exists until the defense is established.” Doyle, 101 Ill. 2d at 10-11 , 461 N.E.2d at 387 . … Although not sued in tort, appellee herein clearly qualified as a party potentially ‘liable in tort’ for Christopher’s death.” (Emphasis added.) Doellman v. Warner & Swasey Co. (1986), 147 Ill.

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

Golden Rule Life Insurance Co. v. Mathias

86 Ill. App. 3d 323 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 17, 1980

(h) The Examination was given by defendants without having been pre-tested in any meaningful way to determine how qualified applicants would respond to it or perform on it. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

TTX Co. v. Whitley

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 13, 1998

Defendants asserted that TTX did not qualify for the single-factor formula because it did not transport passengers or freight. … The issue before the circuit court was whether TTX qualified as a transportation company under section 304(d).

Pritza v. Village of Lansing

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 2010

The Illinois Supreme Court firmly established that governmental self-insurance pools are not “insurance” as defined in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … The court agreed that, in the case of commercial insurance, “the immunity is waived since government funds are no longer in jeopardy and immunity would inure to the benefit of private investors who have assumed the risk

Robinson v. St. Clair County

144 Ill. App. 3d 118 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 2, 1986

The county moved alternatively to strike plaintiff’s request for punitive damages since, under section 2—102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … However, the card itself does not establish entitlement.

Goodwin v. McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Comm'n

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2000

The trial court initially granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, holding that it was time-barred under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS … Additionally, they were not approved or otherwise qualified by the Merit Commission and so do not qualify for the positions of merited deputy.

Ramos v. City of Peru

333 Ill. App. 3d 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 8, 2002

The court determined that section 2 — 107 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2 — 107 (West 2000)) barred all three claims and that there was no legal basis … The Act clearly contemplates that aggrieved individuals may pursue judicial remedies against state agencies and units of local governments such as the City of Peru.

Stehlik v. Village of Orland Park

2012 IL App (1st) 91278 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 2012

. ¶ 23 However, several cases have recognized ordinary or routine police activities do not qualify as enforcement or execution of the law under section 2-202 of the Act. See Hudson, 378 Ill. … the officer “was merely cruising around in his car”–an activity not subjected to immunity.

Tamalunis v. City of Georgetown

185 Ill. App. 3d 173 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 1989

These defenses included: (1) governmental immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 85, par. 1 — 101 et seq.) … Plaintiffs’ evidence clearly established that the overflow discharge is not treated and the creek is polluted. We have considered the O’Brien case cited by the City.

Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc.

361 Ill. App. 3d 642 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 2005

According to plaintiffs, those employees were not maintenance mechanics and not trained or qualified to work on the Isomax. … In fact, the fire was apparently caused by workers who were conducting maintenance on machinery that they were not trained or qualified to work on.

Foust v. Forest Preserve District

2016 IL App (1st) 160873 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 19, 2016

Defendant further argued that the character of the trail established it as a “riding trail” under section 3-107(b). … walkers, joggers, roller bladers, bicyclists, etc.) establishes that if branch failure occurred, the target below would be the paved path and perhaps pedestrians who frequently use the subject trail.”

Strauss v. City of Chicago

2021 IL App (1st) 191977 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 5, 2021

The only form of -9-  such a claim that is clearly established within the Seventh Circuit involves governmental actors who single out a citizen for differential … Immunity] Act.”

Krueger v. Lewis

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 24, 2003

Defendant Zakos argued that his statement was privileged, but it is not apparent whether he sought protection of an absolute or qualified privilege. … Mere proof of failure to investigate without more cannot establish reckless disregard for truth; rather, a plaintiff must establish that the person uttering the statement entertained serious doubts as to its truth.