Case law

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

2014 IL App (1st) 131716 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 16, 2014

the order was intended to establish a generally applicable Commission policy. … As previously noted, when requested by an affected person, the Commission may issue a declaratory ruling where there is a clearly stated controversy or uncertainty.

People v. Jackson

2017 IL App (1st) 142879 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2017

Stapleton thought that Jackson’s “mental status was altered;” Jackson did not follow simple directions and did not seem to be thinking clearly. … He was not offered or qualified as an expert.

The Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

14 N.E.3d 1092 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2014

These grievances are clearly “complaint[s] that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provisions of this Agreement.” … It clearly can[.]”).

Hall v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

376 Ill. App. 3d 822 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2007

“Decisions regarding class certification are within the sound discretion of the trial court and should be overturned only where the court clearly abused its discretion or applied impermissible legal criteria.” … The attorney for the representative party ‘must be qualified, experienced[,] and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.’ [Citation.]

People v. Rosario

166 Ill. App. 3d 383 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 1988

Instead, we agree with the judge who reviewed this issue on defendant’s motion for substitution of judges, who said, “Clearly, I do not find that (the judge was) prejudiced in any way.” … We do not believe the trial court’s comments, taken in that context and with his qualifying remark, can be construed as telling the jury not to believe defendant’s version of the case. Defendant cites People v.

Balough v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2011

Thus, the jury could have concluded that plaintiff’s own testimony was insufficient to establish a basis for an award for disability or pain and suffering though he established compensatory damages, and such a conclusion … Moreover, plaintiff clearly testified regarding the incident, and his testimony was not based upon mere guess or conjecture.

Cookson v. Price

393 Ill. App. 3d 549 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 2009

A medical malpractice plaintiff should be allowed every opportunity to establish his case and amendments to such complaints should be liberally allowed; technical rules should not bar the merits of a claim. Avakian v. … I specially concur because the record clearly shows that plaintiff was aware of the statutory deadlines enacted by our lawmakers, attempted to comply with those deadlines by requesting a 90-day extension of time to provide

People v. Weston

2011 IL App (1st) 92432 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2011

The gang evidence is clearly relevant to show the motive is defendant’s recovery of his fellow gang member[’]s weapons cache, if not weapons belonging to the gang itself.” ¶ 14 At oral … Specifically, he contends Nyoka was not qualified to give lay testimony about the meaning of the term “Lord,” as used by the defendant and Yelvington, and Colbert’s testimony, that the defendant and his group

Silverthorn Development Co. v. Sycamore Creek Homeowners Assoc.

2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 1, 2025

Even though the plaintiff properly alleged a valid business expectancy with his customers, termination of his position as sales representative did not qualify as conduct directed toward the plaintiff’s customers. … ¶ 31 Nonetheless, plaintiff argues that its complaint “clearly pleaded [that Hall] commingled his role as the president of [JRH] with his role as a member of the [DRC].”

Rosolowski v. Clark Refining and Marketing

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 2008

The opinions in Barliant, Key and Wernikoff all provide guidance concerning what constitutes “clearly changed circumstances.” … Our supreme court held that this change did not qualify as a “clear change of circumstances.” Barliant, 74 Ill. 2d at 231.

Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. Merx

443 Ill. Dec. 488 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 22, 2020

However, an insurance contract “will not be invalidated unless it is clearly contrary to what the constitution, the statutes, or the decisions of the courts have declared to be the public policy of Illinois or unless the … However, once a person qualifies as an insured for purposes of the policy’s bodily injury liability provisions, she must be treated as an insured for purposes of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage as well.”

People v. Wheatley

2022 IL App (1st) 200171-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2022

“When a defendant fails to establish plain error, the result is that the ‘procedural default must be honored.’” People v. … If the legislature wanted an element to be usable again in aggravation, “such intent would be more clearly expressed.” Id.

People v. Orr

176 Ill. App. 3d 498 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 1988

The security officers explained it was “teen night” at Bradley’s and as a result only teenagers were allowed into the establishment. … Clearly, Wagner’s personal observations of Jeff after the incident did not constitute hearsay.

City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2008

This condemnation clearly was intended to assist Gateway in accomplishing their goals in a swift, economical, and profitable manner.” … However, our supreme court has qualified and explained the statements made in cases such as Gaylord: “The sweeping expressions [in Gaylord], however, have been restricted to the particular

Johnson v. Ames

2016 IL App (1st) 162770 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2017

In Davis, the court concluded that a referendum related to limiting the terms of elected officials was clearly worded and self-executing. Id. ¶ 18. … I, therefore, would affirm the Board’s decision to sustain objection III and the Board’s conclusion that the referendum was invalid and should not appear on the ballot. ¶ 43 Contrary to established law

People v. Gilyard

237 Ill. App. 3d 8 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 1992

Finally, the court stated that, while defendant technically qualified for statutory life imprisonment, it was going to impose a substantially similar sentence by sentencing him to 60 years in prison. … than all of the facts required to establish the offense of murder in the course of an armed robbery.”

People v. Humphries

223 Ill. App. 3d 81 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1991

In the written consent signed by defendant prior to the test, defendant stated that he submitted “voluntarily without duress, coercion, threat, promises or reward or immunity to be examined by polygraph (Lie Detector) detection … Because defendant’s constitutional rights were involved, we find that the court clearly had the discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 to hear defendant’s motion to suppress, if it justifiably found the motion

Bangert v. Northern Trust Co.

362 Ill. App. 3d 402 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2005

Second, it is well established that a party cannot be held liable for abiding by a court order. See In re Marriage of Nettleton, 348 Ill. … Koplin, 386 Ill. 368, 385 (1944) (“The principle is of universal force that the order or judgment of a court having jurisdiction is to be obeyed, no matter how clearly it may be erroneous”).

Purchase v. Shawnee Community College

2021 IL App (5th) 190296-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2021

no evidence to support his allegation that he was far more qualified than his coworkers based on his education and 30 years’ experience. … ¶ 53 Plaintiff clearly filed Adkinson’s affidavit after the court entered its order on defendant’s summary judgment motion.

LB Steel, LLC v. Carlo Steel Corp.

2018 IL App (1st) 153501 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2019

A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only “if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” … A design professional, in turn, is defined as a person or entity “professionally qualified to perform ‘Professional Services’ either itself or through the services of a subcontractor or subconsultant at any