Case law

Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'n

306 Ill. App. 3d 13 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 1999

Justice additionally argues that the court erroneously struck its Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act or Act) (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. (West 1996)) defenses. … In order to show proximate cause, the plaintiff must, with reasonable certainty, establish that the defendant’s alleged acts or omissions caused the plaintiffs injury.

Lewis v. Beckman

57 Ill. App. 3d 482 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1978

In the instant case, we have no facts in the record from which to determine whether any statement of defendant could qualify as an excited utterance. … The statutory inconsistency referred to in section 65 exists only when the special findings are clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the general verdict. Cohen v. Sager (1971), 2 Ill.

People v. Sutton

45 Ill. App. 3d 739 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 1977

His wife Anita May Moore also testified for the State admitting that in return for her testimony she had been granted immunity. … The instant case does not fall clearly within any one of the established exceptions to the general rule of evidence of unrelated crimes being inadmissible.

Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc.

2016 IL App (4th) 150991 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2017

Plaintiff must prove five things by a preponderance of the evidence: First, that Plaintiff is Caucasian [non-Pentecostal]; Second, that Plaintiff applied for and was qualified … The fact that Defendant may have treated some Caucasians or non-Pentecostal employees favorably does not immunize it from liability in this case.

Glass v. City of Chicago

323 Ill. App. 3d 158 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 2001

Act (Governmental Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/3—101 et seq. … Alternatively, a new trial is appropriate if the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of evidence in that it is palpably erroneous, clearly the result of passion and prejudice or arbitrary and unreasonable.

Maksym v. Board of Election Commissioners

406 Ill. App. 3d 9 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 24, 2011

We review the legal questions de novo and any mixed questions under the clearly erroneous standard. … Clearly, the majority must posit the existence of a new standard in order to avoid the application of the manifest weight standard to the Board's fact findings and application of the clearly erroneous standard to the Board's

Woodward v. Burnham City Hospital

60 Ill. App. 3d 285 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 1978

This rationale is clearly applicable here. … Granting immunity for hospitals and physicians while denying immunity for other members of the health care profession is clearly a special privilege in violation of the Illinois Constitution. In Anderson v.

Roberts v. Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508

2018 IL App (1st) 170067 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 2018

In Palmateer, the Illinois Supreme Court discussed the meaning of “clearly mandated public policy”: “There is no precise definition of the term. … Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant breached the PPA when it asserted to the accrediting agencies that HeaPro 101 instructors were properly qualified.

Group Securities, Inc. v. Carpentier

19 Ill. App. 2d 513 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 23, 1959

to be qualified for sale in Illinois until September 14,1955. … The shares of the Fully Administered Fund and the General Bond Fund, the securities herein involved, were originally registered and qualified for sale in Illinois in 1939 and 1943, respectively, and continued to be qualified

Rogy's New Generation, Inc v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 29, 2000

Language development was clearly supported in preemer-gent activities in literacy with children." … Case law provides that to qualify for an educational exemption, a private entity must meet two prerequisites: (1) it must "offer a course of study which fits into the general scheme of education established by the State";

Thompson v. LaSpisa

249 N.E.3d 468 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 29, 2023

App. 3d 798, 811-12 (1998) (grant of summary judgment improper, as trial court sua sponte raised issue of vicarious liability, when defendant sought summary judgment only on issues of duty and statutory immunity; “[p]laintiffs … Note the qualifier—“except in very simple cases.” Id. at 43.

Perry v. Wiltse

256 Ill. App. 3d 422 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 1993

Further, plaintiff asserts that the trial court’s determination that a qualified privilege protected defendant’s words is not supported by the evidence. … This is clearly met in the instant case.

Jones v. Steck

2020 IL App (3d) 180548 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 4, 2021

Maria also qualifies as an “other” under the statute. She does not own the levee, nor does she occupy it. … Jacobson also recognized that snowmobiling is an “inherently dangerous sport” and that “the clear language of the statute immunizes [the landowner] from an action sounding in negligence.”

Toney v. Bower

318 Ill. App. 3d 1194 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 2001

incurred on behalf of qualifying pupils. … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing its invalidity. In re Marriage of Lappe, 176 Ill. 2d 414, 422 , 680 N.E.2d 380, 384 (1997).

Board of Education of Community High School District No. 218 v. Village of Robbins

327 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 8, 2002

It is well established that on appeal, a trial court’s findings will not be set aside unless clearly contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Reed-Custer Community Unit School District No. 255-U v. … Accordingly, “[t]he decision of the trial court is against the manifest weight of the evidence if a review of the record clearly establishes that the decision opposite to the one reached by the trial court was the proper

Yellow Cab Co. v. PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION

92 Ill. App. 3d 355 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1980

For a preliminary injunction to issue, the plaintiff must establish: (1) possession of a certain and clearly ascertained right which needs protection; (2) immediate and irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) … The failure to establish any one of these elements requires the denial of the preliminary injunction.

Vesey Ex Rel. Vesey v. Chicago Housing Authority

205 Ill. App. 3d 962 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 1, 1990

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (111. … We further note that the CHA has pleaded an affirmative defense based on the immunity provision of section 3 — 102.

Hossfeld v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections

924 N.E.2d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 24, 2010

The decision of an administrative agency is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the "`definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" … Such restrictions and establishment of the periods of time involved are, within constitutional limitations, matters for legislative determination." Sperling, 57 Ill.2d at 86 , 309 N.E.2d 589 .

Adams v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 18, 2011

It is not the Board's burden to establish Adams did not perform additional duties for the pay raises she received in any year. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof. … The Board found monies paid to Adams "subject to the agreement [did] not qualify as salary under [the Administrative Code]."

Spear v. Board of Education of North Shore School District No. 112

291 Ill. App. 3d 117 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 31, 1997

Act (Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8—101 (West 1994)). … Assuming arguendo (without deciding) that the successor district ordinarily ought to assume all the assets and liabilities of the defunct district, this plaintiff’s claim would still not qualify as a liability or obligation