Case law

People v. Wright

161 Ill. App. 3d 967 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 1987

Although the court stated that defendant’s act was the type which qualified a defendant for the death penalty, the court also stated that it had considered the mitigating factors of defendant’s youth, allegedly brutal childhood … Here, in the instant case, the facts established that defendant’s confession was not elicited by such means.

Village of Northbrook v. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook Firefighter Pension Fund

2022 IL App (1st) 220277-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 2022

The Village argues that causation is a mixed question of law and fact to which the clearly erroneous standard applies. … So, this issue is not a mixed question of law and fact to which the clearly erroneous standard would apply.

People v. Morgan

2024 IL App (4th) 240103 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 12, 2024

On January 2, 2024, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release on dangerousness grounds, citing both charges as qualifying offenses. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (4) (West 2022). … These are not the kind of decisions where any particular outcome can be described as “clearly evident,” the relevant outer boundary under manifest weight review. See People v.

People v. Heiman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 26, 1996

Geiger had "a vast amount of training" when he was qualified him as an expert witness. … The trial court's premature and clearly biased remarks denied defendant a fair and impartial trial. McDaniels, 144 Ill. App. 3d at 462.

People v. Shinohara

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2007

Before direct examination, the State questioned Ferraro at a hearing outside the presence of the jury in order to qualify him as an expert in the field of forensic computer analysis. … "The burden of establishing the qualifications of an expert witness is on the proponent of his testimony, and it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the witness has been qualified."

Goodman v. Motor Products Corp.

9 Ill. App. 2d 57 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 1956

That case is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In that case Mr. … , persuaded him to give up an established and growing law practice in New York; he not only gave up his private law practice, but his wife also gave up established and profitable music classes in New York; he sold his home

People v. Young

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 2002

App. 3d 181 , 742 N.E.2d 763 (2000) ( Apprendi clearly exempts recidivist statutes); People v. Roberts , 318 Ill. … If no prejudice to the defendant is established, then there is no need to determine separately whether counsel's performance was deficient. People v. Albanese , 104 Ill. 2d 504, 527 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984).

People v. Kathleen C.

345 Ill. App. 3d 872 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 20, 2004

It emphasized that event only because “[it] came at what would be considered about (9) months — roughly (8) months after the counseling began; and it showed and it established] even more clearly and highlight[ed] the testimony … Regardless, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable.

American Alliance Insurance v. 1212 Restaurant Group, L.L.C.

342 Ill. App. 3d 500 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 11, 2003

The court found that statement clearly defamed him and is covered by the ERP exclusion. Adams, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 505 . … Absent vexatious behavior by the insurer, an insured cannot recover attorney fees incurred in bringing a declaratory judgment action against the insurer to establish coverage. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. G.

In re Jessica M.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 17, 2008

By its terms, section 5-4-3(f)(iii) clearly manifests the legislative purpose delineated in the indexing statute. … Clearly, the statute limits the use of its single DNA database to the purposes set forth in the enactment.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Towers

2015 IL App (1st) 133351 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2015

Moreover, the Towers defendants assert that Martin Jr.’s designations to his spouse, his son Harry, and three of Martin Jr.’s grandchildren were proper because all the designated individuals were qualified … appeal, which fees presented in Dagmar’s attorney fee petition were excessive or not related to the ambiguity resolved by the trial court in this matter. “ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly

People v. Munday

204 Ill. App. 24 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1917

The evidence clearly shows that in the various transactions by which assets of the La Salle Street Bank were dissipated in dealing with the concerns in which the defendant and his associates were interested, there was no … There was a common enterprise if the conspiracy was established, and the instruction only told the jury to consider the common enterprise if “the conspiracy or combination is established".”

People v. Irby

2026 IL App (4th) 241389 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 23, 2026

McEldowney], which would qualify—if it’s ever established—as forfeiture by misconduct. That would allow the attorney to withdraw for the Defense.” … They just were not allowed to attempt to establish an alibi for defendant.

People v. Harris

2014 IL App (2d) 120990 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 14, 2014

. ¶4 The relevant evidence at defendant’s bench trial established the following. … Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2008) (finding no forfeiture “where the trial court clearly had an opportunity to review the same essential claim that was later raised on appeal”). ¶ 20 We turn now to the

Lipscomb Ex Rel. Lipscomb v. Wells

326 Ill. App. 3d 760 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 27, 2001

The plaintiff further contends that the defendant does not qualify for relief under section 7(b — 5) of the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/7(b — 5) (West 2000)). We affirm. … The court held that this contention clearly contravenes the explicit language of section 7(b — 5). Accord Jackson v. Newsome, 325 Ill. App. 3d 372, 385 (2001).

People v. Taylor

2013 IL App (1st) 110166 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 18, 2014

The court limited the evidence by stating that the prosecution “will clearly indicate that the defendant [was] not charged with [the narcotics].” … He argues that Officer Lewis was not qualified as an expert on Kevlar material and his reading of the vest’s label was inadmissible hearsay.

McDunn v. Williams

247 Ill. App. 3d 935 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1992

In Pullen, the seminal decision in this area of the law, the supreme court applied the holding of Craig, which established a two-prong test for when uninitialed absentee ballots are allowed to be counted. … Clearly, the remedy ordered by the trial court was within the broad scope of power granted to it by the General Assembly.

People v. Hunter

124 Ill. App. 3d 516 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 1984

Such a result was clearly not the legislature’s intention in enacting this statute, nor is such an interpretation possible under the Act. … The trial court’s ruling was clearly improper.

People v. Jones

399 Ill. App. 3d 341 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 5, 2010

Furthermore, the evidence clearly established that at least two weapons were used in the shooting. Odis Deal, who had experienced gunfire during his army service, perceived firing from two or three guns. … The statements purport to establish that defendant was present at the witnesses’ home on the night of the shooting.

People v. Oliver

50 Ill. App. 3d 665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 21, 1977

This evidence fairly tends to establish that both crimes were committed by the same man. … The many similar features of the rape of both victims clearly show a common scheme to both crimes.