Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.29s
Walworth Investments-LG, LLC v. Mu Sigma, Inc.
2021 IL App (1st) 191937 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2021
(2) does section 3 (e) of the SRA clearly encompass all of Walworth’s allegations? … All of them taken together clearly require remand to the circuit court.
Cited 2 timesPublished120 Ill. App. 3d 62 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 28, 1983
After listening to an offer of proof, the trial court ruled that Smith was not qualified to testify before the jury *66 as an expert on how hypnosis affects the human mind. … As our supreme court clearly indicated in People v.
Reversed by People v. Cohoon, 104 Ill. 2d 295 (1984)Cited 4 timesPublishedI-57 & Curtis, LLC v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District
2020 IL App (4th) 190850 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 2021
See 70 ILCS 2405/23.4 (West 2018). ¶ 49 Looking beyond section 23.4, we find no statutory provision that limits or qualifies this absolute discretion. … For, in Groenings, the appellate court concluded that “[d]eprivation of mere hoped-for economic gain” failed to qualify as a deprivation of property in the constitutional sense. Id. at 309.
Cited 1 timesPublishedKerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Department of Nuclear Safety
204 Ill. App. 3d 605 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 1990
Kerr-McGee states that its complaint alleges facts which establish an actual controversy exists between it and the Department and, therefore, properly states an action for a declaratory judgment. … Clearly, none of these subsections are applicable to the case at bar. Subsection 5.01 (Ill. Rev.
Cited 9 timesPublished342 Ill. App. 3d 80 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2003
The circuit court, therefore, gave Casanova permission to file an amended petition containing facts sufficient to establish that the arbitrator’s award violated a well-defined and dominant public policy. … The public policy exception is narrow and is invoked only when a violation of public policy is clearly shown. American Federation, 173 Ill. 2d at 307 .
Cited 19 timesPublished199 Ill. App. 3d 214 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1990
The parties do not dispute that the traditional rule concerning the granting of a preliminary injunction by a circuit court requires the party seeking relief to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “(1) he possesses … These regulations provide in pertinent part: “Employers and labor organizations must make reasonable accommodation of the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified handicapped applicants or employees, unless
Cited 5 timesPublished206 Ill. Dec. 460 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1994
"[T]he armed violence instructions given to the jury here referred simply to 'aggravated battery,’ with no qualifying language as the underlying felony. … To permit otherwise would be to circumvent the rule established in People v.
Cited 32 timesPublishedHolland v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
127 Ill. App. 3d 854 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 27, 1984
While such misconduct on the part of Andersen may also have been done in a knowing fashion by ARC, there are no allegations in the complaint which establish that the purported misconduct on the part of ARC’s top management … In support of this position ARC argues that even if Andersen had reissued in 1977 their 1975 opinion as a qualified opinion and disclosed the facts they failed to disclose, as alleged in count I, the misrepresentation of
Cited 19 timesPublished308 Ill. Dec. 899 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 2, 2007
After being qualified as an expert in firearm identification, Parise testified that he received a Glock model 17, 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol, and two fired 9-millimeter Luger cartridge cases for analysis. … But, we may still dispose of defendant’s claim because he has clearly failed to meet other, established, procedural requirements.
Abrogated on other grounds by People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (2018)Cited 113 timesPublishedAppellate Court of Illinois · Oct 30, 2001
BACKGROUND In June 1999, George Welborn , warden of Tamms, issued warden's bulletin No. 99-88 (hereinafter the Bulletin), establishing the "controlled-feeding status." … Defendant also raised sovereign immunity. Attached to the motion were the affidavits of Welborn and Bonnie Sullivan, a licensed dietician and Tamms' dietary manager.
Cited 0 timesPublished466 Ill. Dec. 824 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 6, 2023
Nevertheless, those federal cases are not so clearly inapposite that it would have been unreasonable of Bloomington police officers to rely on them. … Because the record clearly shows the items of child pornography that defendant was convicted of producing, there is no danger of double jeopardy. See People v. Wallace, 210 Ill.
Cited 5 timesPublishedFoster v. Hillsboro Area Hospital, Inc.
2016 IL App (5th) 150055 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 2017
According to the terms of the contract, IEP agreed to staff Hillsboro Area Hospital’s emergency department with qualified physicians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. … This is particularly true in this case, where the record clearly demonstrates that more than one forum has a significant relationship to the issues raised herein, the chosen forum is contiguous to Montgomery
Cited 4 timesPublishedCity of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
373 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 2007
Through the change in the law, the legislature declared persons such as the defendants temporarily qualified and removed the basis upon which injunctive relief was appropriate. … “A statute should not be construed to effect a change in the settled law of the State unless its terms clearly require such a construction.”
Cited 5 timesPublished2023 IL App (4th) 220754 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 1, 2023
The appellate court’s opinion is replete with qualifying language, and, as a matter of law, the court was precluded from ruling on the merits. That was the circuit court’s function at the third stage. … Accordingly, defendant has failed to show an error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable. ¶ 89 III.
Cited 1 timesPublished231 Ill. App. 3d 256 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 1992
We are not suggesting that the AMA is immune to antitrust actions, in a proper context. For example, in a case cited by plaintiff, Wilk v. … Clearly, plaintiff’s physical and mental suffering, however severe and unfortunate, is not the type of “marketplace” injury normally compensable under the antitrust laws.
Cited 2 timesPublished2012 IL App (1st) 73106 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2012
Parker testified that he had been qualified many times in court as an expert in DNA analysis. … Jan. 1, 2011) (the newly enacted Illinois Rules of Evidence merely codified existing case law whenever the Illinois Supreme Court “had clearly spoken”); People v.
Cited 40 timesPublishedDicristina v. Department of Employment Security
2025 IL App (1st) 241462-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 2025
On appeal, he argues the Illinois Department of Employment Security’s (Department) determination that he did not qualify for unemployment benefits was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm. … “Because the [Administrative Review Law] is a departure from the common law, the procedures it establishes must be strictly complied with.” Palos Bank & Trust Co. v.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished2016 IL App (5th) 150401 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2016
Further, each part must “clearly show the points or grounds relied upon under the [s]ection upon which it is based.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2014). … The Peoria County Board’s authorization of a lower tax rate meant the Peoria VAC was still eligible to qualify for state funds that would supplement the local funds for public aid purposes.
Cited 8 timesPublishedCompton v. Country Mutual Insurance
Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 29, 2008
In his motion to reconsider, the plaintiff alleged that he could plead facts establishing that the Founders' settlement check exceeded the amount of Country Mutual's lien. … However, these "facts" do not qualify as "newly discovered evidence." Newly discovered evidence is evidence that was not available prior to the first hearing. Gardner v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad
363 Ill. App. 3d 1166 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 9, 2006
A qualified car inspector checks the cars as the brakes are applied and then again as the brakes are released. Tim Herren, the director of terminal operations for Union Pacific’s St. … The evidence in the record clearly establishes that the current condition of the road makes it unsafe for emergency responders and daily traffic and that the road would require numerous structural improvements to enable it
Reversed on other grounds by Eagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad, 227 Ill. 2d 377 (2008)Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna