Case law

Lakefront Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Pappas

356 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 2005

According to the trial court, Kimball’s conduct with regard to the Yale Property constituted fault or negligence and, therefore, Lakefront did not qualify for indemnity under section 21 — 305(a)(2). … In this case, the Yale Property contains 12 units and clearly comes within section 21 — 305(a)(2).

People v. Godfrey

382 Ill. App. 3d 511 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 23, 2008

The trial court found that the letter did not contain sufficient allegations to establish incompetency of counsel. … Is the Defendant qualified for extended term? PROSECUTOR: No, Judge. THE COURT: The period in the Department of Corrections would be followed by 3 years mandatory supervised release.

Gilyana v. Assyrian American Ass'n of Chicago

43 N.E.3d 164 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 2015

However, we are required to follow precedents established by our supreme court and are not required to follow those of any lower courts. O’Casek v. … The expulsion letter, which is also an exhibit to the complaint, clearly states: “The Executive Committee will reconsider this decision if you feel that it was made in error.”

In Re NS

255 Ill. App. 3d 768 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 1994

Jeanne Burke, a child protection supervisor for DCFS, testified that the 1989 investigation involved not only failing to get immunizations for N.S., but also failing to get treatment for N.S.' asthma and have her treated … I am unaware of any recognized field of expertise which qualifies an individual to be able to determine whether another person is telling the truth. (See People v.

City of Chicago v. American Cyanamid Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 14, 2005

Moreover, a “governmental body need not be asserting an interest affecting everyone in the State in order for it to qualify as a public right.” Board of Education of City of Chicago v. … Clearly, the individuals who illegally possess and use firearms in the city of Chicago are not under the control of the dealer defendants.

People v. Campbell

2022 IL App (4th) 200146-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 25, 2022

We will find a decision manifestly erroneous when we find the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Id. … She testified the microscopic evidence established the immune response was occurring when Galen died, meaning the injuries did not occur after Galen died. The trial testimony of Dr.

First Midwest Bank v. Ottawa Regional Hospital and Healthcare Center

2023 IL App (3d) 220008 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 2023

and documented prior to any elective induction and C-section; and (9) the administration of Rh immune globulin was to be routine for all Rh negative mothers with Rh positive infants or following spontaneous … , depositions, admissions on file, and affidavits, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is clearly

Rose v. B. L. Cartage Co.

110 Ill. App. 2d 260 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 1969

Under the law we cannot disturb the verdict of the jury unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. Manifest means clearly evident, clear, plain, indisputable.” … As to instruction No. 21-A, plaintiffs argue that the reason for giving the instruction was established by the testimony of Poulos and by Mrs.

Yamada v. Hilton Hotel Corp.

60 Ill. App. 3d 101 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 31, 1978

Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts supporting an inference can it be said that such inference is clearly unreasonable. (Justice v. Justice.) A verdict for plaintiffs could be upheld. … We believe, however, that his study of other major downtown hotels qualified him to testify as to what he considered would be an adequate security system for the Palmer House.

People v. Edwards

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1998

Here, the trial court clearly stated six times that defendant had to prove a prima facie case of discrimination and that the defendant had not done so. … This argument clearly was in response to defendant's closing argument and was not error.

People v. Coleman

205 Ill. App. 3d 567 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1990

This evidence could clearly have an impact on what weight the jury might give the earlier hearsay statement. … In the present case, due to combinations of education and experience, it is evident all three witnesses qualify as experts.

Illinois Tool Works v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company

2011 IL App (1st) 93084 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 12, 2011

But Binks clearly owned those rights, whether or not it ever needed to assert them, and it could properly assign them. 5 There is no support for defendants’ assertion that section … Once an injury or loss occurs, the chose in action is established and assignable without the consent of the insurer.

People v. Bailey

108 Ill. App. 3d 392 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 4, 1982

This rule is qualified, however, in that it does not apply to a situation in which an officer uses excessive force. The use of excessive force invokes the right of self-defense. (Ill. Rev. … Verdie Bailey in the instant case is attempting to establish a theory of self-defense in the same manner as did the defendant in Robinson.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Simpson

2015 IL App (1st) 142925 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 13, 2015

Lenders benefit from the law’s establishment of a form complaint, which is fairly immune from attack through pleading motions, and from the streamlined procedure a lender may use to prove up its case. … We cannot establish, as she suggests, a rule that we should ignore omissions in pleadings filed by persons using pro bono services.

In re Estate of Jezewski

2019 IL App (1st) 170100 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 1, 2019

A lack of standing qualifies as an “affirmative matter” under section 2- 619(a)(9). Id. … It is well established, that in construing a deed the overriding concern is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill. 2d 458, 467 (1991).

Golden v. Kishwaukee Community Health Services Center, Inc.

269 Ill. App. 3d 37 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 1994

The circuit court struck the counts, however, because Neal failed to establish "exclusive control.” … Galluzzo (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 279 , 396 N.E.2d 13 , maintain that Olesen was not qualified to testify as an expert against Dr. Goldin since he was neither a licensed physician nor a surgeon.

People v. Smith

288 Ill. App. 3d 811 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 27, 1997

This section is clearly not applicable here. … DCFS has established an administrative review and appeals process for children and families who request or receive child welfare services from DCFS. 20 ILCS 505/5(o) (West 1994).

O'Donnell v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 21, 2005

'Illegal amusement device' does not include a device that properly displays a required tax emblem, that is not used for illegal gambling and that qualifies either as a crane game as defined in the Illinois Criminal Code of … The purpose of section 4-156-150 and the definitions and restrictions therein are clearly unrelated to the content of any speech.

Thompson v. Gordon

923 N.E.2d 808 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 3, 2010

Gordon, 221 Ill.2d 414 , 303 Ill.Dec. 806 , 851 N.E.2d 1231 (2006). [4] The previous decisions in this case, from this court and the supreme court, have at least implicitly assumed that, if Ramisch were to be qualified as … These passages equate the purpose of the engineering expert testimony brought here to establish the engineering standard of care with the purpose of medical expert testimony brought to establish the medical standard of care

People v. Marquis

2026 IL App (5th) 250806-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2026

He further argues that the parties did not discuss the impact of defendant’s pretrial release prior to the detention hearing and that section 110-6(a) (id. § 110-6(a)) clearly allows for revocation of pretrial release only … ¶ 26 Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim also fails where he cannot establish the necessary prejudice. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must meet the Strickland (Strickland v.