Case law

Porter v. Porter

162 Ill. 398 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1896

It was, at most, a qualified notice that she might return, accompanied with the information that he did not desire her to do so. The only question remaining is, is the allowance to the complainant excessive? … He appears to be an economical business man, and with an unencumbered capital of $40,000 he is clearly able to pay the allowance fixed by the Superior Court.

JB4 Air, LLC. v. Department of Revenue

388 Ill. App. 3d 970 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2009

In April 2001, Bell established his primary residence in Illinois, and the airplane was relocated to Du Page Airport. Since then, the airplane has been hangared and flown in and out of Du Page Airport. … We review the agency’s ultimate conclusion (applying section 3 — 70 to the facts), that JB4 did not qualify for the section 3 — 70 exemption for individuals, using the clearly-erroneous standard of review.

Rudd v. The Lake County Electoral Board

2016 IL App (2d) 160649 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 21, 2016

The relevant portion of the statute makes this plain enough: “A person *** who filed a statement of candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter of an established political … All statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, and to overcome the presumption, the party challenging the statute must clearly establish that it violates the constitution. Bridges v.

In Re Marriage of Norfleet

243 Ill. App. 3d 925 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 22, 1993

is a “qualified” one as defined in the 1984 REA. … We emphasize not all retirement plans are “qualified.” Jim’s 401(k) was qualified.

Moore v. Lauer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must “first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Badford are entitled to qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s “burden of showing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established” before the alleged wrongdoing. Casteel v.

Cunningham v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … was not clearly established.

Stuart v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.

68 Ill. 2d 502 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1977

In September of 1969, it became necessary to establish a charitable trust. … In our view, the record does not conclusively establish a basis for such a contention.

People v. Hicks

101 Ill. 2d 366 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1984

The defendant argues that boiling water bums by thermal as opposed to chemical action, and thus does not qualify as a caustic substance under the terms of the statute. … Here, the record clearly indicates that the sentencing judge was convinced in light of all of the facts and circumstances before him that a consecutive term was necessary for the protection of the public.

People v. Shaw-Sodaro

238 N.E.3d 1202 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 22, 2023

The ages of both defendant and A.R. were clearly established, leaving the question of whether an act of sexual conduct was committed as the central issue in the case. … ¶ 34 We find that defendant has failed to establish second-prong plain error.

People v. Daniels

2025 IL App (1st) 230823 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2025

¶ 27 A person raising a constitutional challenge to a statute carries the heavy burden of rebutting the strong judicial presumption that statutes are constitutional and must clearly establish that the statute violates … Because defendant’s age at the time of his qualifying convictions is already established in the record, his as-applied challenge is reviewable on appeal. People v. Martin, 2018 IL App (1st) 152249, ¶¶ 12-13.

Smith v. West Suburban Medical Center

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 21, 2010

(West 2006)), he was immune from liability under various provisions of that statute. Also on May 1, 2007, Triton filed its answer to count I of Smith’s complaint. … In construing a contract, this court is guided by the following well-established principles. When interpreting a contract, a court’s objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties. Carey v.

Kranzler v. Saltzman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2011

Second, it clearly establishes the nature of the transaction. Plaintiff loaned money to defendant. Third, the amount in question is readily apparent: $100,000 plus interest. … Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483, 493 (2002) (“ ‘A court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent authority.

Weissbaum v. Hannon

439 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 1977

He argues that dismissal for the exercise of first amendment rights is warranted only in specifically defined circumstances clearly not present here. Pickering v. … In addition, the court need not reach the immunity arguments which have been raised by the parties.

Villarreal v. Village of Schaumburg

325 Ill. App. 3d 1157 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 19, 2001

It is well established that in order to qualify for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the following requirements must be met: a plaintiff must show a clear, affirmative right to the requested relief, a clear duty of the … In the context of the Act, the mere fact that plaintiff currently cannot perform the duties of a police officer does not qualify his injury as “catastrophic.” B.

Brown v. Hurd

41 Ill. 121 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

Thompson, he was held qualified because his evidence would not have that effect. These two cases recognize the same rule, and it is clear and of easy application. … This is the rule established by the current of authorities. Brown v. Brown, 4 Taunt. 752; Ripley v. Thompson, 12 Moore, 55; Marshall v. Thrakill, 12 Ohio, 275; Marquand v. Webb, 16 Johns. 89 ; Purviance v.

Young v. County of Cook

598 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2009

Qualified immunity The Sheriff Defendants filed a second summary judgment motion contending they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "[I]t is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims." Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 , 732 (7th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted).

Wilson v. Illinois Central Railroad

147 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 1957

The defendant relies upon authorities holding that the Act does not confer upon the returning veteran immunity from layoffs or a reduction in force based upon seniority. Fishgold v. … Where the bar of the passage of time clearly appears upon the face of the complaint, the defense has been considered upon a motion to dismiss. See Berry v. Chrysler Corp., 6 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 1002 .

Wheaton v. Suwana

355 Ill. App. 3d 506 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 11, 2005

Who Deducts and/or Pays for Insurance, Social Security, and Taxes The evidence in this case clearly established that insurance, social security, and taxes were all either funded or deducted by Union County Hospital on behalf … Additionally, the court noted that immunity from suit that arises from the expiration of a statute of limitation is a valuable substantive right.

Ash v. Garden

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2024

The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … invoked qualified immunity.

Chem-Pac, Inc. v. Simborg

145 Ill. App. 3d 520 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1986

Defendants also claim that Joseph Ray Manz was not qualified to testify about damages. Whether one is qualified to testify as an expert witness is a determination that is within the discretion of the trial court. … Clearly, this is not the intent of the rule. In Exchange National Bank v. DeGraff (1982), 110 Ill.