Case law

Nolan v. Elliott

179 Ill. App. 3d 1077 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 3, 1989

Plaintiff contends that this conduct, coupled with the fact that defendant began accelerating after he entered the intersection, clearly establishes defendant’s negligence as a matter of law. … The trial court disagreed, stating: “He’s testifying as to the standard and unless he’s a qualified expert, he can’t do that, and you haven’t disclosed him and then you can’t ask him those questions.”

Goldberg v. Department of Professional Regulation

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

B) Constitutes a breach of the physician’s responsibility to a patient; C) Resulted in assumption by the physician of responsibility for delivery of patient care which the physician was not properly qualified or competent … Those articles would also be admissible for the limited purpose of establishing the basis of Dr. Goldberg’s professional opinion, if not his professional judgment.

People v. Kirchner

250 Ill. App. 3d 981 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 16, 1993

Clearly, the statutory scheme is ambiguous in regard to the status of one in Randy’s position when the presumption of parentage is rebutted. … Any formerly presumed father who might qualify under the law of other States as an “equitable parent” would benefit by remaining in a section 2 — 29 proceeding until all issues are resolved because he would have an opportunity

Camco, Inc. v. Lowery

362 Ill. App. 3d 421 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 2005

The public’s right to examine, inspect and review judicial records is clearly spelled out in section 16(6) of the Clerks of Courts Act. 705 ILCS 105/16(6) (West 2004). … Ct. 1230 (2002), establishes Cameo’s entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law.

Tom Geise Plumbing, Inc. v. Taylor

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2009

The court concluded the evidence established the primary use of the building was residential use. … to qualify as "home repair and remodeling."

Horsehead Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue & the Ill. Indep. Tax Tribunal

112 N.E.3d 646 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 2018

We agree with IDOR that the clearly erroneous standard applies, as this case involves a mixed question of law and fact. See AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. … The catalyst qualifies for the exemption.” 86 Ill. Adm. Code 130.330(c)(6)(A), (B) (2016).

State-Washington Stores Co. v. Walgreen Co.

272 Ill. App. 383 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 21, 1933

Canfield owned all of the stock of Warmington, Inc., except one qualifying share held by Orville J. … Defendant, in its endeavor to be relieved of its obligation to pay rent under its lease, is clearly precluded from collaterally asserting any claimed abuse or unlawful excess of plaintiff’s charter powers as a defense against

People v. Barwig

334 Ill. App. 3d 738 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 9, 2002

Defendant also claims that Mumbower’s testimony established that he failed to follow the guidelines and operational standards established by the Illinois Department of Public Health. … For a decision to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, it must appear that a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trier of fact is clearly evident. Rolando v. Pence, 331 Ill.

Littrell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CAVE-IN-ROCK

45 Ill. App. 3d 690 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 1977

The precise role of the law of contracts in the context of the elaborate statutory scheme of the School Code has not been clearly defined. … As the Board recognizes in its brief, the General Assembly intended, in enacting the teacher tenure law, to protect qualified teachers.

Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2001

The agreements establish wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment applicable to all Unit II members. … These conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

People v. Stitts

2020 IL App (1st) 171723 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 2020

Vasselli turned on his flashlight, walked over to where the object had fallen, and “could clearly see that it was a handgun.” … Mary Wong testified that Stitts tested “positive” for the presence of GSR, though she qualified her testimony, explaining that Stitts “either discharged a firearm, was in the vicinity of a discharged firearm

McArthur v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Decatur

307 Ill. App. 3d 329 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 3, 1999

Ambrosini and Radiological Associates of Decatur filed a motion for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs could not establish proximate causation as to them. This motion was granted on September 29. … We find neither prejudice nor unfair surprise to the hospital in allowing the allegations against it in plaintiffs’ third-amended complaint to relate back to the filing of the original complaint, which was clearly within

People v. Washington

256 Ill. App. 3d 445 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 1993

According to the State, the Act provides relief for constitutional errors occurring at trial, for which newly discovered evidence does not qualify. … "Manifest error” means error which is "clearly evident, plain and indisputable.” Green, 218 Ill. App. 3d at 75 , citing People v. Sanders (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 366, 373 , 568 N.E.2d 200 .

Roth v. Ahrensfeld

300 Ill. App. 312 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1939

J. per his order. ’ The master found from uncontradicted evidence that defendant’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1930, appended to its federal income tax report for that year, was examined by a qualified auditor who testified … There are numerous decisions in this State and other jurisdictions which clearly establish the proposition that one who has been induced by fraud, either of the bank, its officers or third persons, to become stockholders

People v. Ross

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2002

The trial court's finding that the State's reasons were race neutral was not clearly erroneous under these facts. … Hannah first argues that, since the letter is not an admission of guilt, it does not qualify as an admission against interest. This argument is unpersuasive.

In re H.S.

2025 IL App (1st) 250254 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 21, 2025

We review de novo whether something qualifies as hearsay. Id. … A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. J.R., 2022 IL App (1st) 221109, ¶ 37.

People v. Brady

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 2007

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the validity of the statute has the burden to clearly establish its constitutional invalidity. People v. … Defendant's conduct in this case clearly invoked the duties of section 11--401.

Myers v. Spohnholtz

11 Ill. App. 3d 560 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 9, 1973

The court instructed the jury as foHows (Plaintiff’s Instruction No. 15): “In order for a person who has made a defamatory statement to be entitled to a qualified privilege, he must prove that the statement was made in good … However, we cannot conclude that this evidence is sufficient to show that Gundersen did not actually believe that the statements in his letter were true or that there were no reasonable grounds for his clearly expressed belief

Starcevich v. Pollution Control Board

78 Ill. App. 3d 700 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1979

Despite the petitioners’ claim that Paul’s IGA sewer line was not a “sewer system,” that sewer is clearly a “component” of the entire Farmington system. … , stores and industrial or commercial establishments where the volume and nature of waste may vary significantly from structure to structure.” ( 68 Ill.

Clark v. Cannon Steel Erection Co.

359 Ill. App. 3d 739 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2005

The fund operated by BYRMA, which defendant joined in 1996, was created under section 4a of the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/4a (West 1996)), which allowed two or more qualified employers to enter into agreements … what the words of a statute express or beyond what is necessarily implied by what is expressed; a court will not presume that an innovation therein was intended further than the innovation which the statute specifies or clearly