Case law

BURNHAM MANAGEMENT CO. v. Davis

302 Ill. App. 3d 263 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1998

The defendant clearly had an obligation to report her change in employment income to the plaintiff. … Similarly, we find that the recertification process is a necessary step in qualifying for HUD assistance payments and therefore does not constitute a waiver of a breach of a lease.

In Re Marriage of Reynard

344 Ill. App. 3d 785 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 2003

Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). … Mary Anne was clearly entitled to additional maintenance. She contributed and sacrificed 33 years of her life as wife, mother, and campaign worker.

People v. Rehbock

2023 IL App (2d) 220266-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2023

Torres held that the defendant failed to produce evidence to show that the police officer was not qualified to operate a breath test machine, and thus, failed to establish a prima facie case. Id. … We note that the State did not qualify its assertion that it was ready to proceed, and it did not request time to assemble any other witnesses if defendant were to establish a prima facie case.

People v. Jakupcak

212 Ill. Dec. 119 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 2, 1995

App. 3d 927, 931 , there is sufficient evidence to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of reckless homicide even without Lepianka’s testimony. … Driving five miles over the speed limit, while technically violative of the law, does not qualify as driving at an "excessive” speed under Bonzi.

Arnett v. Snyder

Appellate 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.

Vokac v. Berwyn Police Pension Fund

2025 IL App (1st) 240338-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 2025

so established.” 40 ILCS 5/3-125.1 (West 2020)). … The decision also does not establish how the Board should determine the commencement date of pension payments; it simply found that section 3-114.1 does not establish the date.

People v. Cohoon

120 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.

Peet v. Village of Northfield

48 Ill. App. 2d 320 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 6, 1964

Preliminary approval shall not qualify a plat for recording. “. . . . … Summary judgment is a stringent proceeding and the party seeking it must clearly establish that he is entitled to it. The judgment of the lower court is reversed. Reversed. MURPHY, P. J. and BURMAN, J., concur.

Dicristina 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.

Compton 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.

People v. Ortiz

385 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 2008

A trial court’s finding is manifestly erroneous where an opposite conclusion is clearly evident, plain and undisputable. People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004). … App. 3d 679, 688 (2006) (“Subsection (f) was clearly intended by the General Assembly to codify the cause-and-prejudice test adopted by the supreme court in Pitsonbarger”).

Roberts v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co.

229 Ill. App. 3d 706 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 4, 1992

At the hearing when the statements were made, Wainscott spoke by virtue of the authority he had at the time of the accident and thus his statements qualify as admissions of N&W. … Finn might have established that Roberts’ back injury is not the only reason he was unable to return to work. Dr.

People v. Long

2025 IL App (2d) 240237 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 2025

The burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy lays with the defendant. Id. … “Those contents” clearly refers to the contents already known to the law enforcement officers.

Kapotas v. Better Government Ass'n

2015 IL App (1st) 140534 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 2015

plaintiff regarding a position with the Indiana University Health Hospital System, but plaintiff did not receive an interview after the recruiter inquired about one of Johnson’s articles, despite being fully qualified … “At the same time, when the defendant clearly intended and unmistakably conveyed a defamatory meaning, a court should not strain to see an inoffensive gloss on the statement.” Green, 234 Ill. 2d at 500.

Wilbourn v. Cavalenes

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 19, 2010

The record establishes that, regarding the first factor, defendants were clearly surprised by Dr. Kregor’s stricken testimony. … The Purtill court held that an expert will be qualified to testify as to the standard of care in a medical malpractice case if (1) the expert is familiar with the standards of care applicable to a reasonably well-qualified

People v. Bell

2018 IL App (1st) 153373 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2018

To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing that it violates the constitution. People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872, ¶ 22. … The court stated: “Aside from the sheer number of locations and public areas that would qualify under the law, not only in the City of Chicago, but throughout Illinois, the most troubling

Walworth Investments-LG, LLC v. Mu Sigma, Inc.

2021 IL App (1st) 191937 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2021

These facts, however, do not conclusively establish that Mu Sigma’s repurchase of plaintiff’s stock shares was an individual stockholder transaction. … (2) Does section 3(e) of the SRA clearly encompass all of Walworth’s allegations?

Levato v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n

2014 IL App (1st) 130297WC · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2014

For a finding of fact to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 228 Ill. App. 3d 288, 291 (1992). … Id. at 729. ¶ 28 To qualify for a wage-differential award, the claimant must prove a partial incapacity that prevents him from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment and an impairment of earnings

In re J.A.

2025 IL App (1st) 242528 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 16, 2025

“A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 464 (2004). … ¶ 39 We affirm the circuit court’s finding that the State established respondent’s failure to make reasonable progress between January 25, 2022, and October 25, 2022.

Kinsella v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

27 N.E.3d 226 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2015

¶ 28 The Board contends that the above-cited rules and policy statements establish that it has a zero-tolerance alcohol workplace policy, which a plain reading of these same rules and policy statements clearly does … While evidence regarding retrograde extrapolation is admissible, it must be presented with a proper foundation and testified to by a qualified expert. People v. Ikerman, 2012 IL App (5th) 110299 ¶ 38.