Case law

Filipetto v. Village of Wilmette

254 Ill. App. 3d 461 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 1993

Next, the Village asserts that section 3 — 104 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. Rev. … In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from that breach of duty. (Ziemba v.

Country Mutual Insurance v. Peoples Bank

286 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 28, 1997

The testimony clearly indicates that the stay of the boy would be of a temporary nature and the critical element of intention to make the home his permanent abode was lacking. … If foster parents have such immunity, the Bank has no case here.

Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 2007

Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 2002)). … The plaintiffs' action, therefore, is not barred by the Tort Immunity Act's one-year statute of limitations.

Dobbs v. Chase

94 Ill. App. 3d 177 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 1981

Like Stein-berg, however, DeBruyn did not clearly involve an issue of whether the class was so numerous that joinder was impracticable. … Furthermore, there is no question of immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, because an action to recover moneys illegally collected by a governmental officer is not in the nature

People v. Hamilton

27 Ill. App. 3d 249 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 20, 1975

The trial court then granted the State’s request to grant Alsbury immunity from prosecution. … robbery and escape. “ ‘[Wjhere it is contended that the punishment imposed in a particular case is excessive, though within the limits prescribed by the legislature, this court should not disturb the sentence unless it clearly

Luciani v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc.

105 Ill. App. 2d 448 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1969

in order to qualify for participation in the net profits of a division. … The net profit of a division shall be rebated only to qualified participants thereof.

Varela v. St. Elizabeth's Hospital of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 7, 2006

The trial court found, however, that the school board was immunized from liability for its employee's misconduct in part by section 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS … 10/2-201 (West 2000) (Tort Immunity Act)), and dismissed the complaint.

Clyde v. Human Rights Commission

206 Ill. App. 3d 283 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 1990

The evidence clearly established that the relative training levels of NCR employees was directly related to the age of the employees. … The distinction between “qualified” and “able to perform” is artificial.

McGuckin v. Chicago Union Station

191 Ill. App. 3d 982 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 30, 1989

(hereinafter the Tort Immunity Act or Act). … It argues that, pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act, fire fighters are immune from liability for the “failure to establish a fire department or *** provide fire protection service.” (Ill. Rev.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Ryan

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 6, 2004

Sovereign Immunity The defendants' final contention is that the instant action is barred by sovereign immunity. We find no merit to this contention. … Sovereign immunity does not bar this action. III.

Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103

83 Ill. App. 3d 1139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 29, 1980

Therein the court held that the standards for qualifications established by Circular Series A, No. 160, are incorporated into the meaning of “legally qualified” as used in section 24 — 12 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. … In the case at bar for the trial court to take further action than that necessary to issue the writ of mandamus was clearly improper.

Eckerman v. City of Peoria

336 Ill. App. 570 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 8, 1949

The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Patteson v. City of Peoria, 386 Ill. 460 . … She was not a qualified elector of the municipality and therefore was not qualified to hold a municipal office. She never executed any bond and never took or subscribed any oath as provided for municipal officers.

Alencastro v. Sheahan

297 Ill. App. 3d 478 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 1998

Although defendant’s office clearly plays a role in the eviction process, that is not to say that defendant exercises final policymaking authority over that process. … Additionally, liability cannot be imposed upon a supervisory official without establishing that the official was directly responsible for the improper activity. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 373-77 , 46 L.

Gapinske v. Town of Condit

250 Ill. App. 3d 1045 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 16, 1993

The supreme court in West spoke of this 1986 amendment as follows: "The legislature thus clearly, intended to enlarge the scope of section 3-104's immunity and to immunize absolutely the failure to initially provide a traffic … For instance, in West ( 147 Ill.2d at 7 , 167 Ill.Dec. at 977 , 588 N.E.2d at 1107 ), the court wrote the following: "Rather, section 3-104 clearly and unequivocally states that the municipality is immune from all liability

City of Chicago v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV.

293 Ill. App. 3d 892 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1997

The Illinois Supreme Court has clearly held that a claim for declaratory relief is not a present claim. … Furthermore, the Illinois Municipal Code of 1961 authorized municipalities to establish and maintain parks.

Sims-Hearn v. Office of the Medical Examiner

359 Ill. App. 3d 439 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 15, 2005

Act (Tort Immunity Act or the Act) (745 ILCS 10/8 — 101 (West 2000)). … A trial court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action with no opportunity to replead if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven which will entitle plaintiff to recovery.

In re R.J.

2022 IL App (1st) 211542 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 18, 2022

The legislature clearly intended to mean different things. See People v. … (use-immunity statute providing that, upon motion of State, trial court “shall order that a witness be granted immunity from prosecution in a criminal case” was mandatory command on trial court (emphasis in original and

People v. Williamson

78 Ill. App. 2d 90 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 1966

The testimony of a solitary witness may be sufficient to establish the fact that a crime was committed, but it is not sufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, where there is a valid … New people are immune from such apprehension.

Roberts v. Myers

210 Ill. App. 3d 408 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Matviuw’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that he was immune pursuant to the Good Samaritan statute. The appellate court affirmed. … In Johnson, a “Code Blue” was sounded which clearly established the existence of an emergency.

Matsuda v. Cook County Employees' & Officers' Annuity & Benefit Fund

278 Ill. App. 3d 378 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 3, 1995

Defendants’ interpretation ignores the clearly mandatory language of the statute. … This exchange concerns transfers and spin-offs between qualified and nonqualified plans. Yet, section 1 — 116 calls for the establishment of a separate and distinct fund to pay out excess benefits.