Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.31s
2021 IL App (4th) 200213-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 27, 2021
She stated that she had been granted immunity for her testimony and the State agreed to dismiss the charge against her. … Because defendant cannot establish Strickland-type prejudice, he has failed to establish Corum’s ineffectiveness. ¶ 65 3.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished2026 IL App (1st) 240131-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 30, 2026
But as Torres points out, their acquittals on the charge of murdering Cox did not render them immune from liability for either the uncharged stabbing of Bush or their alleged possession of shanks in the jail … Guice’s affidavit in particular establishes that he and other unnamed detainees stabbed and killed Cox, not Torres. See id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished66 N.E.3d 415 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2016
In response, the trial court observed in its written order: "First, how is it established that one is, or is not, a 'victim'? … To qualify under the above subsection, petitioner must show that she "may be bound by an order *** in the action."
Cited 13 timesUnpublished2020 IL App (1st) 171830-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 31, 2020
¶ 17 The State presented a stipulation that defendant had been previously convicted of two qualifying felony offenses. … Decisions regarding what evidence to present at trial are matters of trial strategy, and as such, are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished214 Ill. App. 3d 170 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 1991
She testified that the area where she was attacked was “pretty well lit” and she saw the defendant very clearly. … App. 3d 905, 907 ); such a claim must clearly be established by the evidence. Busch, 15 Ill. App. 3d at 907 .
Cited 13 timesPublishedLa Salle National Bank v. Tolu Rock & Rye Co.
14 Ill. App. 141 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 12, 1884
The rule as stated in this case is qualified, as also in the other cases, to the effect that such evidence would not be admissible as against the rights of a bona fide indorsee of negotiable paper without notice. … But upon whatever ground it may be placed, the rule admitting such evidence under the circumstances stated, is too firmly established to be disregarded.
Cited 8 timesPublished165 Ill. App. 3d 41 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1987
That will occur when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent from the record. Madonia v. Houston (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 713 , 466 N.E.2d 648 . … Thus, while the Act establishes procedures “to provide for the protection of the rights of the educational employee” (Ill. Rev.
Cited 33 timesPublished38 Ill. App. 3d 217 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 1976
persons, places and course of inheritance where Providence has placed him be preserved where possible, and that this interest should be subordinated only when, considering other important interests, a different placement is clearly … accept that argument as valid it would provide a rule whereby even a child snatcher who successfully concealed the identity of the infant for some long interval of six years could, with more or at least equal validity, establish
Cited 12 timesPublishedChicago & E. I. R. R. v. Myers
83 Ill. App. 469 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1899
Inj., etc., Sec. 1509); and while a series of acts of negligence, or even a single act, may so indicate the character and mental disposition as to. prove incompetency, a well qualified and entirely competent person may be … The law on this subject is clearly stated in Baulec v.
Cited 1 timesPublished2014 IL App (1st) 92536 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2014
Defendant gave lengthy testimony at trial on his own behalf and was able to clearly express himself and communicate to the court. … In order to establish prejudice from trial counsel’s ineffectiveness during sentencing, defendant must establish that but for trial counsel’s failure to present certain mitigating evidence, defendant would
Cited 23 timesPublished174 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 23, 1988
Clearly, the legislature changed the terminology to the more inclusive “sex organ” for some reason. … Moreover, defendant’s indigence, a prerequisite to receipt of county assistance, was never established.
Overruled in part, on other grounds by People v. Lawson, 163 Ill. 2d 187 (1994)Cited 45 timesPublishedStorm & Associates v. Cuculich
Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 28, 1998
Meticulous practice dictates that the movants clearly state the section of the Code under which a motion to dismiss is brought. Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum , 159 Ill. 2d 469, 484 , 639 N.E.2d 1282 (1994). … The factual allegations in Count IV of Storm's complaint establish it was aware that the Patner Defendants were serving as counsel for the Cuculichs when they retained Storm to act as co-counsel.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDoe v. Township High School District 211
34 N.E.3d 652 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 2015
City of Chicago, 242 Ill. 2d 205, 227 (2011), "expressly overruled Doe's holding that section 2-202 provided a general willful and wanton exception to the other immunity provisions in the [Tort Immunity]Act" [745 ILCS 10/ … ¶ 110 In sum, defendants failed to satisfy their burden of showing that these items qualified as a communication to an attorney or that Cates qualified as part of the control group.
Cited 7 timesUnpublishedPeople Ex Rel. Schacht v. MAIN INSUR. CO.
114 Ill. App. 3d 334 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 21, 1983
On appeal Main contends that: (1) the trial court erred in holding it had no power to award attorney fees; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain exhibits into evidence as they did not qualify as business records; … Commercial Alliance Life Insurance Co. (1896), 148 N.Y. 563 , 42 N.E. 1044 ), since clearly it is part of the expenses of administration. (See Magnusson v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedCommunity Unit School District No. 5 v. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board
12 N.E.3d 120 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 2014
¶ 65 Although the District had considered outsourcing as far back as 2003, the evidence clearly established that the transportation department's problems had significantly worsened over the years. … Thus, the IELRB's finding that the District violated section 14(a)(5) of the Act is clearly erroneous. ¶ 86 4.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished161 Ill. App. 3d 765 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 1987
Instead, it indicated that in the nine months prior to her eighteenth birthday the minor was clearly capable of changing her mind. … The minor, then, was clearly willing to comply with the court order.
Cited 1 timesPublishedEnbridge Pipelines (Illinois), LLC v. Murfin
2020 IL App (5th) 160007 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 2020
Landowners argued that IEPC would neither constitute a common carrier nor qualify to obtain their property through eminent domain if 90% of the pipeline’s capacity was committed to shipping product owned … IEPC represented that information relating to the identity of the shippers and the capacity contracted to each shipper was “clearly within the protective order.”
Cited 8 timesPublished37 N.E.3d 378 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 2015
The letter also informed defendants they may qualify for other options. ¶ 13 On May 16, 2013, the circuit court entered an order that reset the matter for confirmation of sale. … " ¶ 38 The language of this order clearly establishes that the trial court found defendants applied for assistance under HAMP.
Cited 2 timesUnpublished219 Ill. App. 3d 406 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 20, 1991
These principles are firmly established in this State and have been enunciated in a multitude of decisions spanning well over 100 years. E.g., McCausland v. Wonderly (1870), 56 Ill. 410 ; North Chicago Street R.R. … It was the plaintiff’s position that he was entitled to a review of the court’s order of a remittitur because his consent thereto was expressly qualified.
Cited 32 timesPublishedCummings v. Beaton & Associates, Inc.
249 Ill. App. 3d 287 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 1992
To the extent McDonald’s admits repudiating the settlement agreement in the bankruptcy court, it argues that its conduct was not only justified but mandated by ethical concerns and thus immune from liability. … Clearly, McDonald’s did not. Was there a legal justification for not doing so? Under the material, undisputed facts, the answer is no.
Cited 36 timesPublished
Ask Donna