Case law

Bowman v. Illinois Central Railroad

9 Ill. App. 2d 182 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 21, 1956

S. 1 , establishes the application of the section to the situation presented here. … The field of medicine is not an exact science, and the expert being immune from penalties for perjury, his opinion is too often the natural and expected result of his employment.”

In Re Petition of Kildeer to Annex

162 Ill. App. 3d 262 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 1987

Kildeer next argues that the motions did not allege sufficient facts to establish a meritorious defense. … In any event, the motions themselves clearly set forth the bases of the objections.

Evard v. Monsanto Co.

2025 IL App (1st) 241235 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 13, 2025

Parrillo, 2021 IL 126577, ¶ 65), but it should grant one “where the ends of justice clearly require it.” Curtin v. Ogborn, 75 Ill. App. 3d 549, 553 (1979). … ¶ 65 It may be true that Frieling and Stewart were the most prepared and qualified attorneys of plaintiffs to cross-examine Dr. Farmer and Dr. Saba.

Triton Community College v. Cook County College Teachers Union

2026 IL App (1st) 251223-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 25, 2026

The asserted past practice must be clearly articulated in an ascertainable manner and known by both parties to the agreement; 3. … As such, the arbitrator concluded that the Union proved that full release time for the chair of the nursing department qualified as a legitimate past practice, as it met all four requirements set forth in the past practice

Hamer v. BD. OF EDUC. OF SCH. DIST. 113

52 Ill. App. 3d 531 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 1977

for a judgment declaring the rights and duties of the defendant school board relevant to the charging of fees for rental of textbooks and equipment and asked that the school board be required in the future to permit all qualified … There is, moreover, another aspect of due process in class action suits which may be, and in this case clearly is, tied in with the question of notice. That is adequacy of representation.

Miller v. Rinker Boat Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 2004

The economics of this case clearly do not warrant such a disposition. Moreover, defendant presented no evidence or legal authority to establish the simplicity of a motor boat. … Bates is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Bates , 346 Ill.

ABC Trans National Transport, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forwarders, Inc.

62 Ill. App. 3d 671 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 3, 1978

A preliminary injunction wiU issue where plaintiff establishes that (1) a certain and clearly ascertained right needs protection; (2) irreparable injury wifi ensue without the protection of an injunction; (3) the remedy at … Corp. (7th Cir. 1934), 70 F.2d 377 , 381: “ , * °It is hard to see how anyone can claim any immunity for a tort on the ground that it was innocently done, when at the time of doing it he knew his right to do it was disputed

In re Estate of Hayden

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2005

Clearly, he did not purge himself of contempt in the trial court. The court's finding therefore was not an abuse of discretion or against the manifest weight of the evidence. C. … Even assuming defendant could prove his compliance or inability to comply with the order by proxy, the paralegal's affidavit does not establish that no agency would issue a surety, as several indicated they would mail or

John Deere Co. v. Metzler

51 Ill. App. 2d 340 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 8, 1964

The record clearly demonstrates that in every instance in which Metzler Brothers were placed upon a C. O. … It will be manifest from these examples that immunity from liability for the exercise of a legal right does not rest alone upon the right of competition in trade, but is founded upon the truism ‘that the exercise by one man

People v. Wimbley

314 Ill. App. 3d 18 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 30, 2000

Usually, the decision of a trial court on a fourth amendment motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless that finding is determined to be clearly or manifestly erroneous. … Defendant argues that the amount of cannabis was only 1.2 grams, which is a Class C misdemeanor offense, and does not qualify as an exigent circumstance since it is not a violent or serious crime.

People v. Green

2025 IL App (1st) 242156-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2025

Defendant also did not contest at the time that the aggravated assault of a peace officer count qualified as a detainable offense. … ¶ 31 The Code establishes that all defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

People v. Hilton

236 N.E.3d 1118 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2023

This subsection sets forth who is qualified to petition for a COI and what he may request in terms of applicable relief under the statute. … As we have clearly shown, and in direct contradistinction to his main argument, section 2-702 does not award COIs to petitioners who merely show their innocence only as to the offenses for which they

People v. Buxton

2025 IL App (5th) 250670-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 12, 2025

“A finding 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.” People v. … As such, failure to establish prejudice is a sufficient basis to deny a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 91.

People v. Payne

336 Ill. App. 3d 154 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2002

Defendant testified that she was angry and was not thinking clearly because J.E’s “room was tore up. He had defecated in the closet again. He was just generally misbehaving.” … Defendant argues that because J.E’s age and the allegation that the crime was exceptionally brutal and heinous were not charged, she did not have notice that she qualified for an extended-term sentence.

People v. Byrd

408 Ill. App. 3d 71 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 25, 2011

Thus, the search does not qualify as an arrest search under the second part of the new rule. … Since the search does not qualify under either part, if the new rule announced in Gant applies to the facts at bar, then the search is not valid as a search incident to an arrest.

The Forest Preserve District of Cook County v. Royalty Properties, LLC

2018 IL App (1st) 181323 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2018

As such, the Property was clearly agricultural in nature.” We cannot find this factual finding to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. … The documents cited by defendants clearly reference the property’s long history as a “horse farm.”

Pilz v. McHenry County Electoral Board of Commissioners

2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 13, 2020

Thus, the candidate was served in compliance with the Election Code and jurisdiction in the circuit court was properly established. … The candidate clearly indicated that he was seeking the office of circuit judge in the Third Subcircuit.

People v. Breeden

23 N.E.3d 1260 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2014

Defendant has edited out an important qualifier, the clause “because he’s dangerous.” … But that qualifier, “by and large,” is inconsistent with recouping a known, determinate expense in a particular prosecution.

People v. Talbert

2026 IL App (1st) 250250-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2026

The parties stipulated that defendant “was previously convicted of two prior qualifying offenses.” The jury found defendant guilty of AHC and the trial court sentenced him to 16 years in prison. … Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the statute has the burden of “clearly establishing its invalidity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Coty, 2020 IL 123972, ¶ 22.

Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Ass'n v. City of Waukegan

2025 IL App (2d) 230431 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 4, 2025

The Ordinance clearly impacts video gaming in the City, and, thus, the litigation is not “truly unrelated” to its objectives. … The trial court found that, even assuming that the push tax qualified as an occupation tax, it was authorized by section 8-11-6a(7) of the Illinois Municipal Code.