Case law

People v. Torry

2025 IL App (5th) 220666-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 2025

¶ 10 Upon completion of the testimony and arguments, the trial court found that, along with proving a sudden and intense passion, the remaining portion of section 8-4(c)(1)(E) had to be proven to qualify for sentencing … “Manifest error is error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Id.

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

19 N.E.3d 106 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 9, 2014

Underwriters alleged that the 311 Entities also did not qualify as additional insureds under the Policy because the second amended complaint did not allege any facts triggering potential coverage. … Rather, the Policy clearly contemplates indemnity for the 311 Entities, and the additional liability was undoubtedly reflected in Toji's insurance premiums.

Bell v. Ring

425 Ill. Dec. 840 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 2018

Ill. 1979) (stating that the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not immunize mistakes of law and was designed to protect those defendants who tried to prevent the … A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if it is clearly apparent from the record that the trial court should have reached the opposite conclusion or if the finding itself is unreasonable

People v. Soler

228 Ill. App. 3d 183 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 3, 1992

Beth Huebner, a clinical psychiatrist and qualified expert in sexual abuse, testified that she met with M.M. a total of 12 separate times. … The complainant in the case at bar testified clearly and in great detail as to the specific acts of sexual abuse committed by defendant.

Williams v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital

408 Ill. App. 3d 360 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 2011

Here, the circuit court in Williams II found that in Williams I “[t]he orders [sic] simply striking the counts with leave to replead is clearly not a final order under the Jackson case.” … In order for a plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior, a relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, or employer and employee must be established, as well as that the wrongdoer is either the

Young v. Allstate Insurance

285 Ill. Dec. 921 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2004

Plaintiffs claim that each element for estoppel was established. … We previously concluded that the policy clearly and unambiguously provided for actual cash value coverage and not stated value coverage.

In Re DW

344 Ill. App. 3d 30 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2003

The burden of rebutting this presumption and clearly establishing a constitutional violation is on the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute. … Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination."

People v. Flores-Hidalgo

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 2023

” ¶ 10 In response, the State asserts that the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the defendant committed a qualifying offense under the SAFE-T Act; that he posed a real and present … A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.”

Cronin v. Village of Skokie

2019 IL App (1st) 181163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 2019

expressly held as follows: “Because the legislature intended an injured public safety employee to be eligible for benefits under section 10(a) of the Act whenever his or her injuries were sufficient to qualify … Cronin clearly had a preexisting condition.

People v. Cote

2024 IL App (4th) 240529-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 10, 2024

He argues there was no authority for such an action under the Crime Victims Act and that three of the four statements were authored by individuals who did not qualify as victims under that statute. … Here, defendant clearly objected to the State’s presentation of the four victim impact statements during the underlying proceedings.

People v. Cihak

169 Ill. App. 3d 606 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 26, 1988

To qualify as an admission by silence or an implied admission, it is essential that the accused heard the incriminating statement and that it was made under circumstances which allowed an opportunity for the accused to reply … The court noted that one of the requirements for admission of the defendant’s prearrest silence was that it must clearly appear that the defendant knew that he was being asked about the crime for which he was on trial.

People v. Wilson

2017 IL App (1st) 143183 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 2017

This does not qualify as scientific evidence. See People v. … support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant’s argument would still fail because, under the facts of the case, counsel’s decision not to request specific verdict forms was likely a strategic decision immune

People v. Falaster

273 Ill. App. 3d 694 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 27, 1995

The first point, "an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” is clearly present when a young victim of sexual abuse is required to relate the acts perpetrated upon her. … An example given in the notes includes, "a patient’s statement that he was struck by an automobile would qualify but not his statement that the car was driven through a red light.” (Fed. R.

People v. Gocmen

2017 IL App (3d) 160025 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2017

Here, the witness must be qualified still as an expert and, and must establish the effects of the drugs, which I, I just did not hear. … Clearly there was some issues with driving. But an officer must also show the [effects] of, of the drugs on this individual that he found, and none of that was done.

People v. Grever

353 Ill. App. 3d 736 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 2004

The fact that the legislature chose not to qualify the word “indebtedness” in subsection (v) to indicate by whom or to whom the indebtedness is owed, as was done in subsections (ii) and (iv) with use of the language “township … The statute clearly requires proof of one of the two alternate mental states of intent and recklessness. 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a) (West 1998).

People v. Harris

47 N.E.3d 308 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2015

It is quite a large gun, a handgun and it's clearly visible on the videotape ***. *** The other question is whether or not *** I could find or should find that the weapon that is admitted … Whether an object is sufficiently susceptible to use in a manner likely to cause serious injury so that it qualifies as a dangerous weapon is generally a question of fact. People v.

People v. Dominguez

2025 IL App (2d) 240772-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 2025

“A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive argument presented [citation], and it is not a repository into which an appellant may foist the burden of argument … This is sufficient to establish constructive possession of the firearm, and at this stage, DNA or other evidence is not required.

Watts v. ADDO Management, L.L.C.

97 N.E.3d 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2018

¶ 22 In coming to this decision, we have considered but are unpersuaded by the defendants’ citation to a passage on the Department of Labor’s website, which they purport affirmatively establishes that the plaintiffs … The agency’s regulations clearly provide that the plaintiffs need only allege that they did perform work inside the state, which they did. See 56 Ill. Adm.

People v. Jones

2017 IL App (1st) 123371 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2017

Shaw, however, chose to qualify his statement to aver merely that “Melvin stood alone by himself in front of [the victim]” and “Melvin was the only person [Shaw had] seen that night.” … Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 29 (“The legislature clearly intended for further proceedings on successive postconviction petitions.”).

People v. Thomas

2014 IL App (2d) 121203 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 2014

Thus, contrary to the majority’s approach: -8-  “[T]he United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Victor establishes that a jury instruction … The jury’s question clearly shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it used a lesser standard in convicting defendant.