Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.28s
Loncarevic and Associates, Inc. v. Stanley Foam Corporation
72 N.E.3d 798 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2017
Christie, defendant clearly intended to order and pay for a mass transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements. … Clearly, this record does not contain facts to support defendant’s theory of “sabotage liability.
Cited 6 timesUnpublished2026 IL App (5th) 250290 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 20, 2026
Jewell was qualified as an expert in the field of clinical psychology as part of his testimony. A stipulation with regard to the testimony of Dr. … Indeed, in the case at bar, defendant did so more clearly than the Comier defendant.
Cited 0 timesPublished996 N.E.2d 273 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 20, 2013
Our decision was cast as an effort to effectuate the principles established in People v. … There is a clearly established pattern of deviant sexual behavior and I don’t find lack of sufficient evidence to find that he will not be conditionally released at this time.
Cited 26 timesPublished2023 IL App (1st) 220440-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2023
If a defendant cannot establish cause, we need not consider whether a defendant can establish prejudice. People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 37. … ¶ 19 “The previous unavailability of a legal or factual basis for the claim can qualify as cause.” People v. Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 43.
Cited 4 timesUnpublished358 Ill. Dec. 552 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2012
The party challenging a statute has the burden of clearly establishing that the statute violates the constitution. People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d at 487 , 298 Ill.Dec. 169 , 839 N.E.2d 492 . … Robbins was not qualified to perform), but asked to approve some nebulous interview by a professor who had never conducted an interview of an underage sex abuse victim before.
Cited 2 timesPublished2024 IL App (1st) 230702-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 2024
Among other things, such “admissions” were not made under oath and are not the kind of deliberate, clear, and unequivocal statements which may qualify as a judicial admission. … ¶ 28 In this case, the allegations of the operative complaint are insufficient to establish a cause of action for fraud.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedN. League of Prof'l Baseball Teams v. Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus & Farkas, LLP
428 Ill. Dec. 861 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 28, 2018
The trial court found Carfagna qualified to testify as an expert witness. … We find that the court’s instruction clearly conveyed the applicable law, and no abuse of discretion occurred in giving this instruction.
Cited 6 timesUnpublishedMUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Berkman
399 Ill. App. 3d 456 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 23, 2010
V In order to qualify for fifth amendment protection, a communication must be (1) compelled, (2) testimonial, and (3) incriminating. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 , 48 L. Ed. 2d 39, 54 , 96 S. … At the other extreme is the “quintessential fishing expedition” in which the requesting party clearly had no idea whether the documents existed prior to making the document request.
Cited 18 timesPublishedBoard of Trustees of Illinois State University v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board
2025 IL App (4th) 240936-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 30, 2025
Mixed questions of law and fact, which concern whether the established facts satisfy the applicable legal standard, will be reversed only when “clearly erroneous” or when the reviewing court is left with the definite and … When reviewing the IELRB’s determination that an individual qualifies as a supervisor under section 2(g), we apply a clearly-erroneous standard of review. See Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPekin Insurance Company v. Equilon Enterprises LLC
980 N.E.2d 1139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 2012
App. 3d 294, 297 (2007) (the homeowner did not qualify as an additional insured to trigger a duty to defend because the allegations of the underlying complaint were not limited to “acts or omissions of the named … Wilson, 237 Ill. 2d at 462. ¶ 29 In Wilson, our supreme court expressly rejected the assertion by appellant Pekin Insurance Co. that precedent of the court established a rule “that a trial court must look solely
Cited 12 timesPublished2021 IL App (4th) 190638-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 2021
¶ 11 In July 2019, the trial court denied defendant leave to file a successive postconviction petition, finding she established cause but failed to establish prejudice. … “Thus, if the temporal reach of the statute is not clearly indicated in its text, then the statute’s temporal reach is provided by default in section 4 of the Statute on Statutes.” People v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 IL App (5th) 240619-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 23, 2024
¶ 14 In its memorandum, the State points out that the defendant committed a qualifying offense and that the circuit court determined that the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence. … ¶ 17 Here, it appears that the circuit court did find that the defendant committed a qualifying offense.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished344 Ill. App. 3d 179 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2003
The detective’s testimony concerning Miller is clearly hearsay. The statements concerning Miller were not made by him and cannot be considered statements against his penal interest. … Here, it does not appear that Alvarez’s statement qualified as an admission.
Cited 8 timesPublished305 Ill. App. 3d 665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 1999
The judge found J.S. qualified to testify. No oath was administered to J.S. Defense counsel objected to J.S.’s testimony based on relevance but did not object on the basis of the lack of an oath. … The State argues that it established that the photo was lewd beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cited 16 timesPublishedFrank Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2020 IL App (1st) 191306 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2021
The settling defendants thus clearly paid far in excess of their pro rata shares of the common liability. … Clearly, in order to conform to our opinion in Barnai II, the new trial would require that the jury verdict form include a fault allocation for Nuline.
Cited 0 timesPublished462 Ill. Dec. 551 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 13, 2022
For one, the video shows clearly that the bulge in the front pouch of defendant’s sweat jacket was considerable. … Clearly, defendant thought so because his response was that he was “going back in the house.”
Cited 8 timesPublished2025 IL App (1st) 231028-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2025
Counsel’s decision on whether to file a motion to suppress is generally a matter of trial strategy entitled to great deference and, as such, is “generally immune” from a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. … To establish that counsel’s deficient performance resulted in prejudice under the second prong of Strickland, Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2021 IL App (4th) 190569-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 18, 2021
Stephanie Babb, Fox’s fiancée at the time, testified pursuant to a grant of immunity from the State. Babb testified she found all three defendants at her residence after the shooting took place. … Under the rule, when offered in a criminal case, “[a] statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability *** is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
Cited 1 timesUnpublished2019 IL App (1st) 142019-B · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 23, 2019
Clearly, the totality of the circumstances establishes that it was reasonable for Officer Hummons to believe that defendant was carrying a gun in his waistband. … Clearly, probable cause existed to arrest defendant.
Cited 28 timesUnpublished2021 IL App (1st) 190263 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 25, 2021
. ¶ 20 Both parties stipulated that defendant had “been previously convicted of two qualifying felony offenses.” The State rested, and the defense rested without presenting evidence. … “Unless the petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively refuted by the record, they are taken as true, and the question is whether those allegations establish or ‘show’ a constitutional violation.”
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna