Case law

Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, Missouri v. Boatmen's National Bank

261 Ill. App. 3d 750 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1994

Clearly, if Jennings did not have a duty to plaintiffs, summary judgment would be proper, because a necessary element of the negligence cause of action would be missing. … Plaintiffs, in the case at bar, were clearly designated as beneficiaries in the will, and Jennings knew this as he prepared the will.

La Salle National Bank v. County of Du Page

54 Ill. App. 3d 387 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 1977

They noted that the Thistle Creek area is well established and basically a neighborhood of its own. … It is clearly evident to us that the trial judge exhibited a considerable amount of impatience with defense counsel on a number of occasions.

Ingrassia v. Ingrassia

156 Ill. App. 3d 483 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 10, 1987

Having established that the modification provisions of the current statute apply, it is now possible to resolve a specific claim made by plaintiff. … In addition, the order clearly takes into account “[t]he financial resources of both parents” (Ill. Rev.

People v. Fields

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 14, 2011

Clearly, she was “assisting the prosecution.” The question remains, however, whether she is an “entity.” … While Lawson seems to implicitly acknowledge that a municipality can qualify as an entity, it in no way holds, or even implies, that a person cannot qualify as an entity. 2 We find it unnecessary to

People v. Anderson

2017 IL App (1st) 122640 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 21, 2017

Fulero would be commenting on the “reliability” of these witnesses, which is clearly a function of the jury, not a purported expert. … While both alleged declarants are unavailable, there are no “corroborating circumstances [to] clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statements.”

White v. Advocate Condell Medical Center

2026 IL App (1st) 240450 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

¶ 128 Notably, defendants do not dispute that plaintiff’s experts were qualified to render opinions on the applicable standard of care. … ¶ 232 There is a strong presumption that legislation is constitutional, and “[a] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the heavy burden of clearly establishing a constitutional

In re Brandon K.

2017 IL App (2d) 170075 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 2017

A determination of unfitness is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the determination is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. … ¶ 33 Respondent cites no authority to refute the trial court’s conclusion that the judgment in the criminal case qualifies as a “conviction” to create a presumption of depravity under section 1(D)(i) of the Adoption

Lam v. City of Chicago

2026 IL App (1st) 240052-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

¶5 At the time of the pursuit, the Chicago Police Department had issued General Order G03- 03-01, (the General Order), which states that it “establishes procedures, responsibilities, and restrictions for all sworn … The court commented that the “plain language” of the statute “clearly states -9- 1-24-0052 negligence, and it doesn’t state willful and wanton.”

Lowe v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

124 Ill. App. 3d 80 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1984

To establish the defense the testimony of plaintiffs’ local physicians concerning their prior medical history was needed. … They appear to be a series of tests performed on blood samples in order to evaluate the body’s immune systems.

In re Marriage of Minear

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 8, 1997

Qualifying as a re- payment of debt is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for deductibility under subsection (a)(3)(h). … Clearly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here by adding Robert's claimed depreciation expense back to his income for purposes of determining child support and maintenance.

People v. Saxon

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2007

A stipulation by Melissa Staples, a qualified DNA examiner, said that based on the DNA evidence, Pierre Saxon, Dwight Phagan, and several others were excluded as sources of the DNA obtained from the sperm fraction of the … The State has clearly established that O.W. was a victim of murder followed by arson; has plainly shown that defendant sexually assaulted her; has made weak and ineffectual stabs at showing that defendant had motive1 and

People v. Brown

2022 IL App (2d) 210077-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 2022

Federal citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights, although the Fourteenth Amendment itself grants them certain privileges and immunities ***. … Any such attempt on our part would unreasonably limit the flexibility of trial courts in dealing with lengthy but clearly nonmeritorious claims.

People v. Smith

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 20, 2008

Such motion would clearly qualify as a motion seeking postconviction relief, as indicated by section 22-105(a). See 735 ILCS 5/22-105(a) (West 2006). … “The party challenging the validity of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation.” Jones, 223 Ill. 2d at 596. We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.

Sille v. McCann Construction Specialties Co.

265 Ill. App. 3d 1051 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 1994

Employing Sille's logic to its extreme, all persons who are either physically or emotionally challenged due to injury or genetic makeup, would be immune from the law and the wheels of justice would grind to a halt every time … I note that the record establishes that during a hearing in the instant case, the trial court considered plaintiff's argument that the Berry holding was applicable.

People v. Freeman

162 Ill. App. 3d 1080 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 21, 1987

We hold that defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 . … Additionally, the State maintains that defendant’s assertions concerning the trial judge’s health and observations are wholly unsupported by the record and should be stricken as being clearly improper.

In re Dave L.

2017 IL App (1st) 170152 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 22, 2017

Respondent asserts that this first alleged error would qualify as a plain error under the second prong. However, “[t]he first step of plain-error review is to determine whether any error occurred.” … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing its invalidity.

People v. Howard

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2007

Moreover, this dichotomy may well reflect a legislative recognition that an acquittal upon trial simply establishes the presence of reasonable doubt. See Moore v. Owens, 298 Ill. … The Governor's pardon "authorizing" expungement is just a criteria, then, that the defendant must have before he is even qualified to proceed with his petition under subsection (c)); it simply prevents those who have been

Miller v. Retirement Board of Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

329 Ill. App. 3d 589 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 2001

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by any person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, … The court found that “[t]he change in the basis of computation clearly effects a reduction or impairment in the retirement benefits of the plaintiffs]” in violation of section 5 of article XIII.

People v. Jones

2012 IL App (1st) 93180 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2012

Washington’s alleged statements would not qualify for admission at any retrial for the same reason. ¶ 60 Kenneith Jones is also attempting to establish a claim of actual innocence based on alleged newly … Clearly, the statements attributed to Washington are neither new nor conclusive where Buchholz was aware of them and the postconviction court found they were not trustworthy. ¶ 61 Additional witnesses testified

People v. Mathis

2022 IL App (1st) 211027-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 2022

Defendant argues the State failed to establish the identity of the caller. … ¶ 35 In this case the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the statement on the 9-1-1 call qualified as an excited utterance.