Case law

E & E HAULING, INC. v. Pollution Control Bd.

116 Ill. App. 3d 586 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 3, 1983

noted and evidently accepted the District’s claims that the proposed modification of the Mallard Lake landfill would “improve [the site’s] final use as a scenic and recreational facility” and “improve the environmental qualify … To hold that the PCB (or this court) may not consider the ex parte contacts involved here because they are not part of the record certified by the County Board would immunize such contacts frorp. review because of the very

People v. Wilkins

2024 IL App (4th) 240121-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 2024

As we have said in Inman and many times since, “ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.’ ” Inman, 2023 IL App … More importantly, the State’s burden is established by the evidence presented, not what it might argue, and the circuit court is the final arbiter.

People v. Schmidt

392 Ill. App. 3d 689 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 2009

We agree with defendant that, by enacting the 1990 amendment, the legislature expressed its intent to limit the number and types of aggravated batteries that would qualify as forcible felonies. … On appeal, the respondent argued that the State failed to establish the requisite mental state, since he did not “knowingly” damage either car.

R. A. Watson Orchards, Inc. v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad

250 Ill. App. 22 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1928

The court held: “We are clearly of the opinion that experiments of that character, and their results, and inferences drawn from them by witnesses, were mere collateral matters which could have no legitimate bearing upon the … Nothing therefore is proved which tends to show that they were any better qualified to express an opinion on the subject than were any of the jurors before whom the cause was being tried.

Mendez v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211513-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 14, 2023

Therefore, he has not sustained his burden on appeal or established an injury leading to recovery. … The ordinance clearly aims to proscribe the yelling, screaming, and loud laughter that often accompanies a party and wafts over to neighboring properties.

Roszak v. Kankakee Firefighters' Pension Board

376 Ill. App. 3d 130 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 5, 2007

An administrative agency’s decision on a mixed question of law and fact will only be reversed if the decision was clearly erroneous. Harroun, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 262 , 865 N.E.2d at 275 . … Applicant already established, however, that his own net worth was limited. Workers’ compensation, from his testimony, should have been paying for the rehabilitation.

Anderson v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc.

337 Ill. App. 3d 643 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2003

Stimpson was unable to establish a maintenance issue in this case. … Stimpson, Aon defendants’ expert witness, testified that he was unable to establish a maintenance issue.

People v. Morse

2026 IL App (5th) 250438-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2026

He chased the victim down and clearly did not think the victim, who did not possess a gun, was going to shoot him. … The evidence established that no firearm was recovered from the victim.

Steel & Machinery Transportation, Inc. v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

33 N.E.3d 674 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2015

Ramos testified that once an applicant is qualified and executes an independent-contractor agreement, it is respondent’s responsibility to “continuously monitor” the driver’s status. … Nevertheless, the arbitrator concluded that claimant ultimately established that he was respondent’s employee on the date of the accident.

People v. Newton

2021 IL App (1st) 182044-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2021

The issue is not whether defendant would now be convicted of the qualifying offense but whether he was previously convicted of a qualifying offense citing Fitzsimmons v. Norgle, 104 Ill. 2d 369 (1984) as support. … App. 3d 17, 23 (2006) (finding that where a conviction for possession is predicated on possession by the same person who committed the theft, and his intent was not clearly established by the evidence, jury instructions

Kerasotes v. Estate of Kerasotes

238 Ill. App. 3d 1020 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 1992

Defendants assert that to maintain a suit for an equitable accounting, as opposed to suing in law on an account, plaintiffs must establish the absence of an adequate legal remedy. … The firm qualified this amount by noting that due to the nature of the partnership’s records they were unable to satisfy themselves as to the proper amount of the liability recorded on the books.

In re Marriage of Brill

2017 IL App (2d) 160604 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 13, 2017

Findings are “against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the court’s findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on any of the evidence.” … App. 3d 448, 458 (2006) (stating that in Rogers the supreme court did not reach the issue of whether loans would qualify as income for purposes of child support).

Hawthorne v. Village of Olympia Fields

328 Ill. App. 3d 301 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 2002

The Village has a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) which establishes permitted and non-permitted uses of property within various zoning districts in the Village. … If no qualified family member is available to fill this position, it is the Child Care Act which would require that there be a limit of eight children present in the home.

People v. Childrous

196 Ill. App. 3d 38 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 1990

The evidence established that the defendant and Coleman on April 8 stated they were going to get some money. … Further, these statements do not qualify under the coconspirator exception because Coleman was relating past facts and not engaging in any concealment efforts.

People v. Messina

2026 IL App (3d) 240308-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 21, 2026

The court qualified O’Donnell as an expert in toxicology, pharmacology, and nutrition. … Manifest error is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v.

People v. Spicer

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2008

Jennifer Reynolds, an employee of Cellmark, a private laboratory, was qualified as an expert in DNA analysis. … Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 32 No. 1-05-3358 125, 139 (2005) (“Clearly, there can be no plain error if there is no error”).

People v. Farris

2026 IL App (5th) 240377-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 3, 2026

” ¶ 21 Keia Tate with the Illinois State Police Forensic Crime Lab was qualified as an expert witness in the field of biology and forensic testing. … clearly testified to specific incidents of sexual abuse by the defendant. The jury was able to assess D.F.’s credibility when she gave her CAC interview and testified at trial.

People v. McCall

2022 IL App (3d) 190780-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 2022

The record clearly indicates that defense counsel made no objection at the time of the State’s motion and raised the issue for the first time in a posttrial motion. … May 17, 2019), which provides that the circuit court retains jurisdiction to correct certain errors in sentencing, clearly states the remedy in such cases.

In re R.A.

2021 IL App (3d) 210185-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 21, 2021

A court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Id. … The minors had regular “well child” exams and were up to date on immunizations.

Northern Trust Co. v. University of Chicago Hospitals & Clinics

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2004

The required inconsistency arises when the special interrogatory is " 'clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the general verdict.' " Simmons , 198 Ill. 2d at 555-56 , quoting Powell v. … ; Was the worker's undertaking to repair the truck when he knew he was not qualified the sole proximate cause of his injury?