Case law

Northland Insurance v. Truckstops Corp. of America

914 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 1995

A subsequent decision has clearly held “that defendants should be allowed ... to assert plaintiffs employer’s negligence as an affirmative defense.” Ridings v. Ralph M. … Further, such consideration *220 does not eliminate an employer’s immunity from tort liability for this same reason....

Rakowski v. Lucente

104 Ill. 2d 317 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1984

To accomplish that, a mutual mistake, material to the transaction and affecting its substance, must clearly and convincingly be established. Hoops v. Fitzgerald (1903), 204 Ill. 325, 331 ; Ogren v. … that the release covering “all claims of every nature and kind whatsoever” was broad enough to release rights of contribution, the court added that “[tjhere is nothing about the right to contribution which would make it immune

People v. Bryant

131 Ill. App. 3d 1011 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 1, 1985

On the other hand, the test set forth in Cramer is clearly met in this case. … The witness was clearly qualified to comment upon his own analyses. The limited number of samples analyzed by Marcouiller affected the weight and not the competency of his testimony.

Golf Trust of America, L.P. v. Soat

355 Ill. App. 3d 333 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2005

This testimony clearly shows that the 1999 reassessment was done to revise and correct the general reassessment that had not been completed by the township assessor. … We answer this question in the affirmative, and we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly establish a violation of equal protection in the valuation of objectors’ property.

Eads v. Heritage Enterprises, Inc.

325 Ill. App. 3d 129 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2001

Moreover, plaintiff must attach “[a] copy of the written report, clearly identifying the plaintiff and the reasons for the reviewing health professional’s determination that a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing … Specifically, section 3 — 609 provides: “Any person, institution or agency, under this [a]ct, participating in good faith in the making of a report, or in the investigation of such a report[,] *** shall have immunity from

Heying v. Simonaitis

126 Ill. App. 3d 157 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1984

Initially, we note that a complaint for defamation must clearly identify the specific defamatory statement complained of. … Clearly the conduct complained of is not so outrageous in degree as to extend beyond all possible bounds of human decency.

Robertson v. Brost

83 Ill. 116 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1876

Her testimony as to Foster’s statements and admissions were clearly inadmissible, aside from the objection of the witness being the wife of Brost, as being mere hearsay evidence. … He would need but to send her to the adverse party for some purpose pertaining to the subject of litigation, and thus qualify her, under the guise of an agency, to testify to admissions made which would go to establish the

Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

2015 IL 118043 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2016

In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must determine whether established facts satisfy applicable legal rules. … If the IELRB did not clearly err on that point, we must consider whether it clearly erred in finding the grievances arbitrable under section 10(b) of the Act.

In re Zachary G.

2021 IL App (5th) 190450 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 25, 2021

Thus, section 5-810 reflects the legislature’s intent to show minors who qualify for the application of the statute greater leniency than minors who qualify for discretionary transfer, while still providing … However, in a proceeding to designate a case as an EJJ prosecution, once the State establishes the juvenile’s age as being 13 years or over, that the alleged violation would be a felony offense in adult court

Rayford v. Chester Mental Health Center

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also argue that they are protected by qualified immunity because “the record in this case demonstrates that Defendants did not violate … “To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time

Rayford v. McLean County

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they clearly violated LaVonte’s Fourteenth … Qualified immunity shields a public official unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Grissette v. City Of Aurora

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2024

whether Webster is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 person would

Wheeler v. Wheeler

134 Ill. 522 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1890

most that could be rightfully claimed, under the constitution or as a matter of comity, would be that citizens of a sister State should be placed upon a footing with citizens of this State, and accorded equal rights and immunities … Again, the legislature, in a very marked manner, has established a policy to facilitate the speedy settlement of estates and the prompt distribution of funds to creditors and distributees.

Kelley v. Crosfield Catalysts

962 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1997

One is that his absence was a qualified leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. and 5 U.S.C. § 6381 et seq. (FMLA). … The Act clearly does not provide qualified leave for every family emergency.

Thompson v. Calhoun

216 Ill. 161 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1905

Calhoun, deceased, to the appellee, conveying the west half of the north-west quarter of section 27, town 11, north, range 6, east, in Peoria county, and establishing title to said tract in the heirs of said Henry E. … From these directions the intent of the grantor to irrevocably divest himself of all dominion or right of control over the deed is clearly disclosed.

Clark Oil & Refining Corp. v. Golden

114 Ill. App. 3d 300 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 22, 1983

Opinion Plaintiff first contends that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. … In each case, the complainant must present evidence that he was qualified for the position in question.

Muldrow v. Barron

2021 IL App (1st) 210248 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 10, 2021

“It is well established under Illinois law that the conclusion of an election cycle normally moots an election contest.” Id. ¶ 36. … A mixed question of fact and law is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review and is one in which “the historical facts are admitted or established, the controlling rule of law is undisputed, and

Haynes v. United States

237 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 2017

A case the Government cites in its opposition brief makes this point clearly. … Although the evidence need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense, it must establish that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date charged.

Whittaker v. Honegger

284 Ill. App. 3d 739 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 1996

As our supreme court acknowledged in Ziemba, "Section 368 presents the well-established common law rule that a landowner’s only duty towards travelers on an adjacent highway is to keep his land free from conditions which … Clearly a duty to remove it would arise. How much gravel must be present before the risks posed become unreasonable thus giving rise to a duty? We do not know. That is a mixed question of law and fact.

Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas

105 Ill. App. 3d 28 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 23, 1982

Although Trígona concedes that the instant action alleges the same cause of action asserted in his Federal complaint, he contends that the prior Federal adjudication does not operate as a bar under well-established principles … Clearly, had Trigona’s original action been brought in State court, section 24 would have permitted the commencement of the instant action, since there would have been no adjudication on the merits under Supreme Court Rule