Case law

People v. One MacHine Known As" Circus Days"

23 Ill. App. 2d 480 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 1960

The person in whose establishment the device is operated can make an accurate settlement with the owner of the device. … The construction and appearance of the table clearly shows it to be a ‘device’ to ‘receive money on chance,’ within the terms and intent of the statute.

In re Marriage of Gorr

244 N.E.3d 353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 6, 2024

“A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.” Id. … The qualifying term “substantial” is not present in section 603.10’s modification subsection, and therefore, only a lesser finding of a “change of circumstances after the entry of an order restricting parental

Hertel v. Sullivan

261 Ill. App. 3d 156 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 7, 1994

The grounds for dismissal may be established by affidavits or depositions. (Wood v. Village of Grayslake (1992), 229 Ill. App. 3d 343, 348 , 593 N.E.2d 132, 136 .) … Plaintiff clearly knew or should have known enough to put her on reasonable inquiry, at the latest by May 8, 1988, more than two years before this suit was filed.

People v. Hoffman

2020 IL App (2d) 180853 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 2020

In that case, the defendant was originally charged with a felony drug offense but was granted use immunity to testify at his brother’s murder trial. McPherson, 2018 IL App (2d) 170966, ¶ 3. … The trial court clearly explained why it thought that the public needed to be protected against future offenses by Hoffman.

Rosario D. Salerno's Sons, Inc. v. Butta

263 Ill. App. 3d 42 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1994

review of the cases in this area shows "that often the language used is broader than the facts require, and that the cases were ones in which confusion could effectively be averted if the newcomer were required only to qualify … Here, although Salerno’s Sons was clearly entitled to an injunction to prevent defendant’s unlimited use of the name "Salerno,” we believe the trial judge erred in finding, without holding an evidentiary hearing, that defendant

Newell v. Field Enterprises, Inc.

91 Ill. App. 3d 735 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 12, 1980

We therefore follow the minority view that a qualified privilege extends to reports of charges contained in pleadings filed in court.” … The magazine account was clearly libelous. The court first stated that a divorce proceeding is not the type of public controversy referred to in Gertz. (Firestone.)

People v. Jackson

2015 IL App (3d) 140300 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 29, 2016

44 The determination of the competency of witnesses in criminal trials is governed by section 115-14 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115-14 (West 2012)): “(a) Every person, irrespective of age, is qualified … This holding is clearly at odds with the automatic nature of the substitution permitted under section 114-5 of the Code. People v. Nolan, 332 Ill.

People v. Dunum

182 Ill. App. 3d 92 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1989

Yuksel Konacki, an assistant Cook County medical examiner, was qualified as an expert and testified as to the autopsy he performed on the victim. … No such foundation for that testimony had been established at the time Konacki testified.

Moore v. Swoboda

213 Ill. App. 3d 217 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1991

The court stated that the verdicts returned did “not clearly indicate what the jury concluded in this regard.” … Oddly, defendants argue that plaintiff qualified Becker as an expert accident reconstruction witness, while plaintiff insists he did not.

Dunning v. Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

2015 IL App (5th) 140168 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 10, 2015

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence. Kindernay, 366 Ill. … The general rule is qualified. Judicial admissions only apply when a party’s testimony, taken as a whole, is unequivocal. Brummet, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 267, 576 N.E.2d at 1234.

People v. Knapp

2024 IL App (3d) 230140-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 2024

(b), (c) (West 2020))] (i.e., the individual used cannabis in the vehicle or possessed cannabis in an unauthorized container), the individual’s possession of cannabis is not immune … indications in the record that suggest Kern observed an odor of raw cannabis, we find the description of “fresh” cannabis, as articulated in the State’s factual recitation, ambiguous because it fails to clearly

People v. Reimer

971 N.E.2d 1134 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2012

The State also argues that the record establishes that the State did not deliberately mislead the grand jurors. … This is clearly an incorrect statement of the law of home repair fraud.

People v. Plackowska

2020 IL App (2d) 171015 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 2020

Obolsky testified as an expert in forensic psychiatry and was found qualified to render an opinion on the issue of insanity. … Obolsky was an expert in forensic psychiatry and was found qualified to render an opinion on the issue of insanity. Dr.

People v. Strickland

211 Ill. App. 3d 183 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1991

It appears that she continues in that position with respect to not even seeking to qualify for the suitability with respect to [IPS]. … Under these circumstances, the requirements of section 5 — 6—4(f), “notice and a hearing” before a defendant’s probation can be modified, were clearly met.

People v. King

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 25, 2008

However, we disagree with defendant that there are no distinctive elements among the crimes to establish modus operandi. … The supreme court held that the defendant had clearly indicated his desire to cut off questioning. Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d at 287.

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co.

74 Ill. App. 619 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1898

The witnesses who testified as experts fairly qualified themselves as such by the showing made of their experience and knowledge of the business. … The jury had been clearly told in other instructions that a recovery could only be had upon proof of a parol contract with appellant.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Doherty

305 Ill. App. 3d 141 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 27, 1999

Hoskins was quoted as qualifying his statements by adding that full or continuous production did not mean full capacity and that it would be some time before prestrike production levels were achieved. … Because the claimants were originally disqualified from receiving benefits, they had the burden to establish their eligibility.

Olczyk v. Cerion Technologies, Inc.

308 Ill. App. 3d 905 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1999

No cause of action should be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved under the complaint entitling plaintiffs to relief. Bryson, 174 Ill. 2d at 86-87 ; Peter J. … Cerion’s sales to StorMedia were directly contingent upon StorMedia’s success in qualifying its product by a specific date for use by Maxtor.

People v. LeShoure

139 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 26, 1985

But to immunize one accused of the offenses charged here because of the minor indiscretion involved would be a travesty of justice. … Clearly it did not.

Citizens Utility Bd. v. Illinois Commerce Com'n

211 Ill. Dec. 578 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 1995

In order to qualify for Rate CS, these customers would have to file a written application with Edison as well as an affidavit stating the customer's intent to bypass Edison's system. … Clearly, both the filing of the proprietary contracts "for informational purposes" and the failure to keep the same open for public inspection contravenes the language of the Act.