Case law

Scoa Industries, Inc. v. Howlett

33 Ill. App. 3d 90 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1975

The State is immune from suit without its consent. (Powers v. Telander (1970), 129 Ill.App.2d 10 , 262 N.E.2d 342 .) … The court of claims has been established with exclusive jurisdiction to provide for the orderly disbursement of State funds if plaintiff’s claim has merit. See Chicago Welfare Rights Organization v.

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

In Re Beatriz S.

204 Ill. Dec. 523 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 13, 1994

We agree with the State and find that the record in this case conclusively establishes that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to qualify Utigard as an expert in social work and Acosta as an expert in family … be arbitrary and clearly erroneous.

OKO, LLC v. Illinois Department of Revenue

2011 IL App (4th) 100500 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 20, 2011

indicia of ownership to qualify for the exemption. … The ALJ complains here that OKO “did not clearly establish through documentary evidence” that the Center had a troubled financial history, that the sale-and-leaseback was its only financing option, or why the

Luss v. Village of Forest Park

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2007

(West 2006) (Tort Immunity Act) governs the question of liability. … In their summary judgment motion and in their brief to this court, defendants Forest Park and Baker relied solely on the immunity provided to them by the Tort Immunity Act.

Bianchi v. McQueen

58 N.E.3d 680 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2016

¶ 35 The record clearly establishes that on September 18, 2009, Judge Graham appointed McQueen as a special prosecutor pursuant to section 3-9008 of the Counties Code. … Plaintiffs respond that their complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish malice, because the facts clearly establish that defendants’ intent was not to seek justice.

O'Brien v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 1996

Counts six and seven alleged the City owed plaintiffs a duty to install median barriers under sections 3- 102(a) and 3-103(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act ("Tort Immunity Act") … The construction qualifies as an improvement and, under section 13-214(b), any suits regarding that construction must be initiated within ten years.

Enterprise Recovery Systems v. Salmeron

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2010

She clearly breached that duty when, as her own admission establishes, she lied to Enterprise in signing the general release in order to induce a significant settlement payment knowing at the time that she had no intention … Yet Salmeron did not seek to invoke the immunity of the Act which she now claims.

In re Estate of Stinnette

2024 IL App (2d) 230174 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 3, 2024

More importantly, Williams sought DNA testing to establish that Marcellis Jr. was, in fact, Marcellis Sr.’s son. That testing conclusively established that Marcellis Jr. was Marcellis Sr.’s son. … Clearly, Illinois courts have recognized that an otherwise qualified potential administrator of an estate might be disqualified because of an “unresolvable conflict of interest.”

Lieberman v. Liberty Healthcare Corp.

408 Ill. App. 3d 1102 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 11, 2011

Defendants also argued (1) they were immune from suit under statutory and common law and sovereign immunity and (2) the “Heck rule” supported their collateral-estoppel argument and should be adopted as Illinois law. … Clearly, a successful claim would be inconsistent with their lawful commitments.

Rockhold v. O'Brien

312 Ill. App. 601 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 7, 1942

They claim immunity because the defendants Siebel and Siebel were acting as attorneys, and Scofield as agent for the defendant corporation and Wardell, its trustee. … The Gilbert case is clearly not decisive of the case at bar, although findings in it aid in determining the question here.

Alencastro v. Sheahan

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.

Lloyd v. County of Du Page

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 3, 1999

The allegations in the subparagraphs that the trial court determined were barred by the Tort Immunity Act fell within the category of conduct excluded from the grant of immunity provided by the Tort Immunity Act. … They were not set forth to establish the duty the doctor owed the decedent.

Kopolovic v. Shah

967 N.E.2d 368 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 2012

Shah qualifies as an author of statements covered by the Act. … Accordingly, he cannot establish the substantial truth of the charge that Dr.

Raffen v. International Contractors, Inc.

284 Ill. Dec. 934 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 3, 2004

On appeal to our supreme court, the defendant contended that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (see 745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. (West 2002)). … The courts that have found third parties in the best position to avoid the injury are clearly distinguishable.

People v. Branom

29 Ill. App. 3d 258 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 19, 1975

The defendant maintains that the evidence fails to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. … Billman testified that he was engaged in selling marijuana, and that he had been granted immunity. The jury was fully aware of these facts.

People v. Geiger

2011 IL App (3d) 90688 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2011

Again, the record clearly establishes that defendant herein, much like the defendant in Carradine, “chose to incur imprisonment rather than” testify. … The record clearly established that the defendant in the murder trial was a gang member, and at least one other witness against that defendant had received threats.

Lykowski v. Bergman

299 Ill. App. 3d 157 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 18, 1998

These allegations are vague and conclusory and fall short of the “clearly and with particularity” standard. … Therefore, a qualified privilege of a special kind was recognized under which a newspaper or anyone else might make such a report to the public.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

2014 IL App (1st) 132455 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

. ¶7 The parties agree that we review the Board’s decision that a position qualifies as a “confidential employee” position under the “clearly erroneous” standard. … The Board’s determination as to whether the facts establish that an employee is a confidential employee as defined by statute will not be reversed unless that determination was clearly erroneous.

People v. Quinn

332 Ill. App. 3d 40 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 24, 2002

An offer of proof “is not required where it is apparent that the trial court clearly understood the nature and character of the evidence sought to be introduced, or where the question itself and the circumstances surrounding … Most notably for purposes of the present appeal, the Knight court did not establish an absolute rule but, rather, recognized that a qualified privilege does exist at trial for the disclosure of a surveillance location.