Case law

See v. Illinois Gaming Board

446 Ill. Dec. 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 18, 2020

, the state has waived sovereign immunity, or the suit is for prospective injunctive relief. … In Higgins, the Seventh Circuit noted the well-established rule that a state may waive its eleventh amendment immunity from being sued in federal court, and then, of course, the federal court can consider

Haeflinger v. City of Wood Dale

129 Ill. App. 3d 674 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1984

App. 2d 282, 294 , 209 N.E.2d 878 ), our supreme court has held that any immunity from laches enjoyed by the State is of a qualified nature (Hickey v. Illinois Central R.R. … Co. (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 427, 448 , 220 N.E.2d 415 ), and is not an absolute immunity as maintained by defendant.

Sorrells v. City of Macomb

2015 IL App (3d) 140763 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 29, 2016

The City also argued that it was immune from liability under section 2-104 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Illinois Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2-104 (West 2012)) … (providing immunity to a local public entity for issuing a permit, license, certificate, approval, or similar authorization), section 2-105 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-105 (West 2012)) (

Kirk v. Arnold

441 Ill. Dec. 754 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 2020

Instead, the State Registrar contended that the plaintiffs were barred by principles of sovereign immunity from assessing fees and costs against the State Registrar. … Initially, the trial court found that the plaintiffs’ fee- petition claim was not barred by principles of sovereign immunity.

County of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Board Local Panel

347 Ill. App. 3d 538 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 2004

Any new employee shall have six (6) months from date of hire to establish actual residency with Cook County. Section 4. … As the petitioners have pointed out, this language goes on to qualify that “those residency requirements shall not allow residency outside of Illinois.” 5 ILCS 315/14(i) (West 2000).

Johnson v. Chicago Transit Authority

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2006

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

Eubanks v. NORTHWEST HERALD NEWSPAPERS

397 Ill. App. 3d 746 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 2010

Once a qualified privilege is established, a communication is actionable only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant abused the privilege. Vickers, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 404 . … Generally, a plaintiff can establish abuse of a qualified privilege by showing actual malice. Gist, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 374 .

Wheaton v. Suwana

341 Ill. App. 3d 929 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 15, 2003

Suwana was immune from suit. That inference is erroneous. Because of Dr. … Who Deducts and/or Pays for Insurance, Social Security, and Taxes The evidence in this case clearly established that insurance, social security, and taxes were all either funded or deducted by Union County Hospital on behalf

Campbell v. The Department of Personnel

989 N.E.2d 1198 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 2013

Sept. 8, 2008)) for the proposition the Secretary’s department of personnel was required to “establish and maintain lists of qualified applicants for positions covered by Jurisdiction B of the Code.” … When the Director establishes eligible lists on the basis of category ratings such as ‘superior’, ‘excellent’, ‘well- qualified’, and ‘qualified’, the veteran eligibles in each such category shall be

Anderson v. Sutter

119 Ill. App. 3d 1070 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 1983

Starcevich appears to be an application of the rule established in Jones v. … Thus, though the complaint does not clearly allege when the injury arose, nor precisely how the injury was caused, it is apparent that plaintiffs do not allege that the cause of the injury was the plan or design of the dam

Griffin v. Fluellen

283 Ill. App. 3d 1078 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 20, 1996

Moreover, plaintiff asserted that no evidence has been offered which is sufficient to establish that defendant was a state employee. … Plaintiff next contends that even if defendant was a state employee at the time of the occurrence, the circuit court would still have jurisdiction over this claim, where there exists abundant case law which clearly shows

Hernandez v. Kirksey

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 19, 1999

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 … App. 3d 639, 642 , 606 N.E.2d 273 (1992) ("reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented.")

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, Ltd. Partnership v. Chicago Board Options Exchange

2018 IL App (1st) 171316 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2018

With respect to Tait, Knabjian explained that he received a warning because “he didn’t provide the qualifying information that says each one is handled on a case-by-case basis so, essentially, [he] didn’t adhere … The defendant may meet its burden of proof either by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in its favor or by establishing the absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case

McWilliams v. Dettore

387 Ill. App. 3d 833 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 20, 2009

The plaintiffs were given two opportunities to establish the foundational requirements to qualify Dr. Gomez. The second opportunity came after Dr. Joyce’s motion in limine challenging Dr. … While the dissent contends the familiarity prong showing was established, unlike in Silverstein, neither the plaintiffs nor the dissent quotes Dr. Gomez’s “precise testimony” that in their judgment qualifies Dr.

Toth v. England

348 Ill. App. 3d 378 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 2004

The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had not established the requisite elements for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or defamation. … If a complaint in a small claims action clearly notifies the defendant of the nature of the plaintiffs claims, it states a cause of action. Johnston v. Suckow, 55 Ill. App. 3d 277, 281 , 370 N.E.2d 650, 654 (1977).

Townsend v. Gaydosh

197 Ill. App. 3d 339 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1990

The fact defendant was employed as a highway maintenance man for DOT and operated State-owned equipment at the time of the accident was established by an affidavit accompanying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. … In Creamer, however, the fact pattern is decidedly different, since the Creamer defendants’ actions were clearly beyond what the State employer assigned them to do, while this defendant was clearly doing what his work assignment

Boub v. Township of Wayne

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 1997

Illinois case law has clearly established that, under section 3--102(a) of the Act, vehicles, as defined by the Vehicle Code, are intended users of public streets, roadways, and highways and that, with narrow exceptions, … Recognizing that the legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries that occur as a result of unintended uses of roadways, our supreme court has

Struve v. Department of Conservation

14 Ill. App. 3d 1092 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 25, 1973

At first blush this appears to be a case which clearly repudiates the well established rule that the state is immune from suits prosecuted in courts of law or equity. … Our views regarding the question of severeign immunity as presented by this appeal coincide with those set forth in the case of Powers v. Telander, 129 Ill.App.2d 10 , 262 N.E.2d 342 .

Carr v. Koch

2011 IL App (4th) 110117 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2011

The standards are not a state curriculum, but their “purpose is to clearly define essential knowledge and skills that students should have as a result of their schooling.” … However, “[s]chool districts are not required to exert a minimum Operating Tax Rate in order to qualify for assistance under this Section.” 105 ILCS 5/18-8.05(A)(4) (West 2010).

Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302

29 Ill. App. 2d 471 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 4, 1961

No. 302 (1959) 18 Ill. 2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89 clearly denies recovery to any plaintiff except Thomas Molitor and admits of no other interpretation, and that subsequent proceedings in the Thomas Molitor case in the Illinois … For this reason we feel justice will best be served by holding that, except as to the plaintiff in the instant case, the rule herein established shall apply only to cases arising out of future occurrences.”