Case law

Gray v. National Restoration Systems, Inc.

354 Ill. App. 3d 345 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 16, 2004

This was clearly a ruling that pertained to issues that were no longer before the court, and as such, was improper. … Clearly these paragraphs also dealt with the adequacy of warnings. This was clearly erroneous. As such, we find that the trial court decision was erroneous as it pertains to these paragraphs.

Springfield School District No. 186 v. Department of Revenue

384 Ill. App. 3d 715 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 26, 2008

The District does not clearly and convincingly establish that it intends to own the property in the future where it has granted a third party the right to transfer ownership. … At issue is whether the District clearly established the second element of section 15 — 60.

Northern Illinois University Foundation v. Sweet

237 Ill. App. 3d 28 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 1992

The constitution and the statute permit the exemption only on the basis of a qualifying use, and the property must be in actual use for the exempting purpose to qualify for the exemption. … Because the plaintiff has failed to establish clearly its right to the educational use exemption, and because any doubts must be resolved in favor of taxation, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision must be sustained; it was

Nickum v. Village of Saybrook

972 F. Supp. 1160 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 1997

However, a common thread running through the case law on Noerr-Pennington is that in order to qualify for immunity, one must utilize legitimate means to get to the desired end. … Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 267, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2760 , 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (establishing immunity for municipalities, as opposed to individuals, from punitive damages under § 1983); Smith v.

Jodelis v. Harris

118 Ill. 2d 482 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1987

Hopkins is applicable here, and under it, Amvets is clearly not liable in tort for purposes of the Contribution Act. In Doyle v. … The Dramshop Act does not merely provide dramshops with immunity or an affirmative defense to an intoxicated patron’s suit.

Anderson v. Community Unit District No. 228

114 Ill. App. 3d 901 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 24, 1983

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides as follows: “No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States *** shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied … Supp. 661 , is clearly applicable to this issue.

People Ex Rel. Toman v. 110 South Dearborn Street Building Corp.

372 Ill. 459 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1939

The proposition that taxing bodies should not establish a rate which would result in unnecessary accumulation of public funds is thoroughly established, (People v. … Wabash Railway Co. 368 Ill. 497 , lays down the well-established principle that courts will not interfere with the decision of taxing bodies on the question of the amount to be levied where it does not clearly appear that

Conley

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2026

Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show that they violated clearly established law by either identifying closely … And his reliance on district court cases is unavailing as they don’t clearly establish the law under qualified immunity. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir. 1995).

Williams v. Department of Human Services Division of Rehabilitation Services

2019 IL App (1st) 181517 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2020

The agency, however, can never provide “cash for establishing a business.” 89 Ill. Adm. … do not allow it to “provide funding for *** cash for establishing a business.”

People v. Tyler

66 Ill. App. 3d 1017 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 1978

In Reed, we held that there was no per se conflict of interest and to otherwise establish the denial of effective assistance of counsel the defendant must establish actual prejudice resulting from representation by the same … Here, although the group was clearly bent on illegal activities, there is no evidence tending to show that the rape was part of a common plan.

West v. Rowe

448 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1978

Plaintiff’s second set of allegations are less clearly defined but appear to involve his dissatisfaction with administrative responses to his inter and intra institutional *60 transfers. … We reject defendant Rowe’s argument that the doctrine of respondeat superior immunizes him in this situation.

Nichols

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional … Martinez’s actions did violate the Fourth Amendment, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Buchanan, 592 F.

Mitchell v. Plano Police Department

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Put more simply: to defeat qualified immunity, Mitchell would have needed to clearly establish that towing her car, and thus conducting a pre-tow inventory search, was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Weber v. COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BD.

359 Ill. Dec. 141 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 24, 2012

a mixed question of fact and law for which the standard of review is `clearly erroneous.' … Neither of them clearly resolves the issue, however. First, each paragraph is more general in some respects, yet more specific in other respects, than the other.

United Delivery Service, Ltd. v. Didrickson

213 Ill. Dec. 452 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 12, 1995

The report stated that UDS failed to prove that its drivers qualified as independent contractors under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill. Rev. … The drivers therefore were engaged in an independently established occupation.

McGuire v. Chicago Transit Authority

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2018

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a presumption of qualified immunity, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish two things: (1) that the facts alleged describe a violation of a protected right; and (2) that this right was clearly established at

Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

2018 IL App (1st) 170336 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2018

” ¶ 20 An employee may qualify for discretionary immunity if he holds either a position involving the determination of policy or a position involving the exercise of discretion. Cabrera v. … However, an employee who qualifies 7 No. 1-17-0336 for discretionary immunity based on his responsibilities must also have engaged in both the determination of policy

Lewis-Connelly v. Board of Education

214 Ill. Dec. 92 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 25, 1996

These laws, as implied terms of the contract, established conditions precedent to the effectiveness and enforceability of the contracts. … These provisions established a condition that plaintiff be certified in the subject area she was hired to teach.

Offutt v. Kaplan

884 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 1995

Moreover, federal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts. See Koll v. … granted guardian ad litem absolute immunity.

Armstrong v. Chicago Park District

693 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 12, 1988

If that is not contested, her claim as stated clearly fails. After all, defendants can hardly be faulted for promoting someone less qualified than Armstrong if she had already turned them down. Armstrong Aff. … [while] less qualified males have been promoted.” 24 To establish a prima facie case on that claim, Lyle must show she was qualified for the Area Supervisor position — which is two rungs above her on the “lines of promotion