Case law

People v. Edwards

337 Ill. App. 3d 912 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 26, 2002

Following additional testimony about his experience in the WalnutHoman area, the court qualified Officer Bielecki as an expert in the field of narcotics law enforcement, particularly with regard to drug trafficking in the … Clearly these cases do not support defendants’ argument.

Van Gelderen v. Hokin

2011 IL App (1st) 93152 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2011

Nor does he argue the evidence was elicited for the purpose of establishing culpability. … The argument is supported by law and clearly made in good faith. For this reason, we vacate the trial court order holding Schroeder in contempt. See People v.

Dockery v. Ortiz

185 Ill. App. 3d 296 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1989

Joseph's Hospital operative reports which tended to establish (1) plaintiff's left foot pain did not diminish after the Ortiz surgery in October 1982 at St. … Gerard Pierre-Jerome, which established (1) that Alfonso Dockery was told by Dr.

Underwood v. City of Chicago

2016 IL App (1st) 153613 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 4, 2016

The trial court held that one category of plaintiffs did not have a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection. … maximum of $21 per month if the annuitant is qualified to receive Medicare benefits."

Frances House, Inc. v. The Illinois Department of Public Health

43 N.E.3d 1084 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 13, 2015

She testified that at the time of the R4 incident, she was employed as the Qualified Mental Retardation [sic] Professional (QMRP) at Kanthak. She began working there since April 2009. … A mixed question of law and fact is one “ 'in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard.' ” Parikh, 2014 IL

People v. Simmons

2025 IL App (5th) 220817-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 2025

As long as he clearly alleges to the circuit court that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, a pro se defendant “need not provide the underlying factual basis for his claim.” … Admission of Expert Testimony ¶ 79 OSAD next acknowledges that the State presented testimony from three opinion witnesses without first qualifying those witnesses as experts.

The Board of Education of Bremen High School District No. 228 v. Mitchell

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 10, 2008

A board of education also qualifies as an employing unit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. … However, in this case, the identity of the correct employer was never clearly expressed. As we have described, the parties were inconsistent in identifying the employer among themselves.

People v. Richardson

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 21, 2007

We acknowledge that the decision to file a motion to suppress is generally considered to be a matter of trial strategy immune from ineffective assistance claims. People v. Deloney, 359 Ill. … Had the trial court been unable to consider the evidence obtained in the illegal search or consider defendant’s statements, the result of defendant’s trial clearly would have been different.

Prince v. Kiel

2020 IL App (4th) 190773-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 1, 2020

stated that after considering the materials submitted by the parties, including the consent for treatment forms, the “Identification of Physicians” signs, and the advertisement materials, it found plaintiffs could not establish … However, the disclosure statement goes on to qualify the information provided as to that category, indicating that only “some” of the physicians in that category are independent contractors.

Williams v. Manchester

372 Ill. App. 3d 211 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 2007

To qualify for the study, however, she would require drainage of her liver through a stent to reduce her bilirubin levels. … Roseberry elected to have the abortion because she could not qualify for the experimental chemotherapy study while pregnant.

People v. Lofton

2015 IL App (2d) 130135 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 12, 2016

As I explain below, because the properly admitted, nonhearsay evidence overwhelmingly establishes defendant’s guilt, I cannot agree with the majority that defendant has established a claim of ineffective assistance … Defense counsel accomplished this strategy by eliciting the circumstances of Jones’s and Tate’s statements to police; by establishing the close relationships among the three witnesses; by establishing the similarities

People v. Dunigan

96 Ill. App. 3d 799 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 22, 1981

Patricia Brown’s testimony established that he sought no medical aid for these headaches. … The prosecutor’s objections to these questions were sustained by the trial court on the grounds that she was not qualified to answer them.

In re Marriage of Smith

981 N.E.2d 1163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 2012

He contends that, since Sharyl drafted the memorandum and there was no qualifying term such as “not completely” or “not permanently” next to the word “disabled,” any ambiguity should be construed against her … It is well established that an abuse of discretion will be found only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id.

McChristian v. Brink

2016 IL App (1st) 152674 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2016

Defendant also claims that, like a hospital, these intraorganization communications do not qualify as third-party communications under Petrillo. ¶ 26 Further, communications among members of a medical … This HLA statutory exception applies only to hospitals, and there is no basis to extend this exception by judicial fiat to L.L.C.s or corporations when the legislature clearly declined to do so. ¶ 40

Bruemmer v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 2002

It has not been established that every member of the class of Compaq purchasers has experienced malfunctions with his or her computer. … Whereas the declaratory judgment sought in AG Farms would clearly define property rights and terminate the litigation as to the defendant, issuance of the declaratory judgment plaintiff seeks in the case at bar would not

Nicholson v. Chicago Bar Ass'n

233 Ill. App. 3d 1040 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 1992

“To establish a violation of the due process clause, [p]laintiff must demonstrate^ in addition to State action,] that she was deprived of a ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interest.” Rouse, 609 F. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Grohne

2019 IL App (3d) 180063 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2020

Grohne did not qualify under this statute. The trial court did not err in its interpretation of the statute. … Grohne’s evidence establishes that 4 out of the 71.049 acres taken from Grohne South and CTT were not presently necessary for the intermodal facility at the time of this taking.

Van Gelderen v. Hokin

354 Ill. Dec. 833 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 29, 2011

Nor does he argue the evidence was elicited for the purpose of establishing culpability. … The argument is supported by law and clearly made in good faith. For this reason, we vacate the trial court order holding Schroeder in contempt. See People v.

People v. Sharp

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 2005

Accordingly, section 115-10 clearly provides for the constitutional admission of hearsay statements when the declarant does testify. … The statement taken by Whitaker was clearly testimonial. The similar tape-recorded statement in Crawford , "knowingly given in response to structured police questioning, qualifies under any conceivable definition."

People v. Thomas

139 Ill. App. 3d 163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 13, 1985

In deciding Wainwright, the court was aware of the Grigsby lower court decision and the Keeten decision and the studies allegedly showing that death-qualified juries are conviction prone. (Wainwright v. … It is established that it is improper to make references to a victim’s family where the information has no relevance to defendant’s guilt or innocence. (People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 359 , 197 N.E.2d 436 .)