Case law

Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort

258 Ill. App. 3d 424 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 11, 1994

which the public have established for themselves, with dangerous ditches and pit-falls. … The city claims it has no duty because of the immunity granted it by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act): "[A] local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care

Valentino v. Hilquist

337 Ill. App. 3d 461 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2003

Breach of Contract Defendant Board argues that the evidence failed to establish a breach of contract claim. … That is clearly not the case here. Plaintiffs complaint does not allege “criticisms”; it alleges battery.

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)) (

Rivera v. Arana

322 Ill. App. 3d 641 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 9, 2001

Genuine Issues of Material Fact A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file establish that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and, therefore … App. 3d 553, 561 , 720 N.E.2d 360 (1999), the issue was what constituted an emergency call for purposes of the Tort Immunity Act.

Jamison v. City of Chicago

25 Ill. App. 3d 326 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 1974

Section 2 — 202 comes under “Article II — General Provisions Relating to Immunity” and is clearly general in nature. … Sections 4 — 102 and 4 — 107 are clearly sections granting specific immunities.

Brooks v. City of Peoria

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 1999

10/3--102(a) (West 1996)) (Tort Immunity Act). … It is well-established that the Tort Immunity Act imposes a duty of care upon municipalities to maintain property only for uses that are both permitted and intended. Boub , 183 Ill. 2d 520 , 702 N.E.2d 535 ; Vaughn v.

Martinez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

2017 IL App (3d) 160514 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2018

that argument, defendants assert that (1) plaintiff did not state a claim for the assessment of a penalty against defendants under section 35 of the Withholding Act, since plaintiff did not (and could not) establish … The purpose of the section 35 statutory penalty is clearly to punish those who violate the Withholding Act and to deter future violations—not to compensate the recipient of support for the payments that he or

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).

Carrillo v. Hamling

198 Ill. App. 3d 758 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 20, 1990

Defendant’s section 2—619(a)(9) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint relied heavily upon paragraph 12.6.1 of the Aurora police department general orders to establish that defendant was on duty at the time he injured plaintiff … Nevertheless, because defendant has so clearly misstated the law, we will address his contention that his mere status as plaintiff’s co-worker renders him immune from his common-law tort action.

Fryman v. JMK/Skewer, Inc.

137 Ill. App. 3d 611 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1985

This hardly rises to the level of immediate responsibility which the fourth element endeavors to establish. … An immunity is a bar to liability when all elements of a cause of action have been established. We have already held that plaintiffs did not allege facts giving rise to a duty running from the county to them.

DPH Aurora Properties LLC v. City of Aurora

2025 IL App (2d) 240540 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2025

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … Magana, Harris, and Irvin are clearly public employees, and the City is clearly a “local public entity.

Rafti v. Department of Human Services

2020 IL App (2d) 190983 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 2020

You’ve demonstrated your ability to understand written information, understand spoken information, do research, present clearly, read and understand, write clearly. … Evidence that training may be useful does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such training is necessary.

Shields v. State Employees Retirement System

363 Ill. App. 3d 999 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 16, 2006

The majority distinguishes Barry on the basis that the instant “action is against the State and [sovereign] immunity applies.” 363 Ill. App. 3d at 1006. … The statutory language clearly supports the conclusion that interest is due on the principal up to August 27, 2003, when the System paid Shields, and upon that prior interest from August 28, 2003, onward.

Thompson v. Cook County Forest Preserve District

231 Ill. App. 3d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 19, 1992

He stated that crosswalks are intended to funnel large groups of pedestrians from one clearly defined point to another. … The court rejected defendant’s claim that section 3 — 104(a) immunized it from liability. Initially, we note that neither the Janssen nor DiOrio court determined that the Act established a duty to warn.

Carroll v. Paddock

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 2000

The Niehaus court held that the characteristics that make a not-for-profit corporation a charitable organization do not, without more, also qualify the corporation as a local public entity under the Act. … Clearly, the Act's purpose of "protect[ing] local public entities and public employees from liability arising from the operation of government " requires more. (Emphasis added.) 745 ILCS 10/1-101.1 (West 1998).

Wallace v. Smyth

301 Ill. App. 3d 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 21, 1998

Here, plaintiffs claims clearly arose out of Maryville’s supervision and discipline of Waketta. … Clearly, therefore, the parent-child tort immunity doctrine factors of legal and financial responsibility, which the majority relies upon to deny Maryville in loco parentis status, had no bearing on the in loco parentis status

Dunbar v. Latting

250 Ill. App. 3d 786 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 14, 1993

To properly state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. (Wojdyla v. … Based on our review of Tomlin, we disagree with the plaintiffs and conclude that Tomlin is clearly distinguishable. In Tomlin, the defendant held a rodeo on his farm.

Rafti v. Department of Human Services

2020 IL App (2d) 190983 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 2020

You’ve demonstrated your ability to understand written information, understand spoken information, do research, present clearly, read and understand, write clearly. … However, evidence that Rafti was not hired for a work-study job does not establish the necessity for paralegal training.

Rivera v. Garcia

401 Ill. App. 3d 602 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2010

Police in pursuit of a law violator may enjoy an immunity from liability or they may not be negligent at all. … Public employees are generally immune from liability for negligent acts or omissions by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act; however, this immunity does not extend to acts or omissions constituting

Wagner v. City of Chicago

254 Ill. App. 3d 842 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 1993

The City contends that plaintiff’s references to a failure to install traffic control devices clearly falls within the former section 3 — 104(a), which provides that a municipality is immune from liability for the failure … The parties argue whether section 3 — 104(a), which provides immunity for failure to initially provide a traffic device, or section 3 — 102(a), which establishes a duty to maintain the intersection, also imposes liability