Case law

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Hanover Park

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1999

Defendant, Village of Hanover Park, has established by municipal ordinance an alternative traffic enforcement program for certain traffic offenses. *** 10. … Clearly, Mr. Ryan qualifies as any relator , and it is equally clear that the Attorney General in this case was authorized to initiate this action on behalf of the People based on the information Mr.

People v. Temple

2025 IL App (1st) 240917 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 8, 2025

This lack of controversy supported the designation of those venues as “sensitive places” where gun regulation was clearly constitutional. Id. … However, the founders did not have a rigid conception of what kinds of places qualified as sensitive. Id.

Tufo v. Tufo

457 Ill. Dec. 934 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2021

He was qualified as a certified public accountant to give testimony regarding Dancu’s testimony and expert disclosures. … This contention, however, is clearly belied by the record. Plaintiff was the vice president of Discount Fence.

In Matter of Petition of C. M. A.

306 Ill. App. 3d 1061 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1999

We can conceive of no legitimate motive or worthwhile purpose for questioning the petitioners on such clearly irrelevant matters. … The allegations of the instant substitution motion do not establish a threshold basis.”

In re T.P.S.

978 N.E.2d 1070 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 9, 2012

provisions contained in section 607 of the Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/607 (West 1998)).2 The court stated, “Not only does it categorize those persons who may petition for visitation, but section 607 also qualifies … Therefore, Illinois courts sparingly use the power to declare agreements void as being contrary to public policy; the power is used only when an agreement is clearly against public policy (as established by

Dumke v. The City of Chicago

994 N.E.2d 573 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2013

to determine the taxonomic position of (a biological specimen) establish the identity of: show or prove the sameness of.” … Clearly, any notion the report was not identified within the meaning of FOIA cannot be seriously entertained. ¶ 25 The City’s reliance on Harwood v. McDonough, 344 Ill.

Schipper & Block, Inc. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co.

122 Ill. App. 2d 34 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 1970

This action was brought by plaintiff to obtain a construction of the lease, to set aside appraisals made for the purpose of establishing the rent for the 10-year period commencing in 1964, and to have the rent established … The trial court in its order found that the appraisers were “qualified in their profession and were unbiased.”

People v. Pickens

354 Ill. App. 3d 904 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2004

We begin by noting that “[statutes are presumed constitutional, and the party bringing a constitutional challenge to a statute has the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation.” People v. … Here, the offenses clearly do not share identical elements, and these two sections target distinct conduct.

Lundquist v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 19, 2000

Clearly, the question of whether a particular house is occupied depends upon the specific facts of each case. Our research has revealed no Illinois case involving a factual situation similar to the instant case. … His insurer, State Farm, claimed that the home did not qualify as the insured's "residence premises" because the insured did not reside there for the eight months prior to the fire, while he was incarcerated.

People v. Baltimore

7 Ill. App. 3d 633 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1972

however, it was not intended to discredit the witness generally, but only to bring out that she had been charged with a criminal offense in order to show that the witness might be coloring her testimony because of an offer of immunity … The distinction clearly appears when that sentence is read in conjunction with Rule 366, which deals with the powers of a reviewing court and the scope of review. Rule 366 provides: ‘[a] Powers.

Cox v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.

245 Ill. App. 3d 186 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 1993

He did not sell any franchises in Illinois until he was legally qualified to do so.” … He is not involved in those sales, because the way they get sold is they get sold through the person who is qualified and we qualify people within the home office including Fred DeLuca. Q.

People v. Rosenthal

394 Ill. App. 3d 499 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 1, 2009

compliance with Section 103 — 5 of this Code. (2) The prosecution of the offense is barred by Sections 3 — 3 through 3 — 8 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as heretofore and hereafter amended. (3) The defendant has received immunity … The State may properly respond to comments made by defense counsel that clearly invite a response. People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 444 (1993).

People v. Orsby

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1996

We observe, first, that the statute makes no requirement that, for a handgun to qualify as a dangerous weapon, it must be loaded. See 720 ILCS 5/33A--1 (West 1994). … Clearly the trial court intended to impose a sentence of more than the minimum.

People ex rel. Todd v. Board of Education

258 Ill. App. 271 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 10, 1930

Section 131 provides that the board may, subject .to the limitations contained in the act, “establish bylaws, rules and regulations, which shall have the force of ordinances, for the proper maintenance of a uniform system … To permit the rule to be extended thus far would be to grant to the board absolute and uncontrolled power, which clearly was never intended to be given to it.

Fragakis v. Police & Fire Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1999

Section 3--103 clearly grants the right to amend in those situations where a party has filed a timely complaint but failed to name a police chief or failed to name an individual member of a board where the board was made … We find the "party of record" analysis unnecessary as to the question of whether a party may be added where the party that a plaintiff seeks to add qualifies for amendment under section 3--103.

People v. McDonald

255 N.E.3d 928 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2024

Accordingly, to establish plain error, a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred. Id. … If either prong of the Strickland test cannot be shown, then the defendant has not established ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 697.

In re Marriage of Carstens

101 N.E.3d 181 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2018

Thus, Judge Ukena himself clearly contemplated that the order could be modified. … As such, respondent’s amended petition clearly fell within section 801(c). As a result, the changes effectuated by Public Act 99-90 govern these proceedings. Cf.

Allied Asphalt Paving Co. v. Village of Hillside

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 9, 2000

Department of Revenue , 131 Ill. 2d 196 , 545 N.E.2d 695 (1989), where the court considered the issue of whether the purchase of two ready-mix concrete trucks qualified for a manufacturing tax exemption. … Allied's attempts to describe the crushing plant as construction equipment or contractor's equipment flies in the face of reason and logic, particularly where the crushing plant clearly performed a complete manufacturing

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Old Orchard Plaza Limited Partnership

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 30, 2002

Because this issue involves a mixed question of law and fact we review it under the clearly erroneous standard. See Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. … Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s conclusion that Burin adopted the Lease is not clearly erroneous. C.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Gagua

2020 IL App (1st) 190454 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2020

Once again, however, Rule 113(c)(4) clearly states that the affidavit need only “substantially” adopt the appearance and content of the form provided. Id. … Furthermore, it has long been recognized that “[c]ompliance with the requirement that an affidavit must affirmatively show that the affiant is qualified to testify at trial is to be determined from the