Case law

Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Pollution Control Board

49 Ill. App. 3d 954 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 1977

However, the Coal Operators case clearly established the principle that the regulations of the PCB will not be overturned unless they are clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. … Because administrative agencies are inherently more qualified to decide technical problems, objections to said regulations must show that the regulations are clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

United States v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation

141 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 1956

Such an allocation of customers, not immunized by the patent laws, would constitute a violation, per se, of the Sherman Act. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. … Oral or implied understandings, whether legally enforcible or not, *132 may contradict or qualify the written word for purposes of the Sherman Act.

Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation

2014 IL 116023 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2015

We find that the plain language of the Act clearly applies to convictions imposed prior to the Act’s effective date. ¶ 20 II. … The revocation proceedings simply do not qualify as a “relitigation” of the same case.

People v. Tinkham

203 Ill. Dec. 358 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 23, 1994

Defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that the conduct alleged to have been committed on April 25, 1986, resulted in a supervisory order which was not a conviction and thus failed to qualify as the first factor which would … Where, as here, the first offense results in an order of supervision, the defendant clearly gets a warning.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge

179 Ill. 2d 141 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1997

This court could not perceive any legislative intent to add any additional conditions to section 604 to qualify a claimant for benefits. … However, the legislature did clearly express a contrary intent. Sections 604 and 1502.1 address different subjects.

Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.

376 F. Supp. 3d 369 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 25, 2019

Defendants do not dispute that this limitation is satisfied, and it clearly is. … Defendants make no argument that this limitation is not met, and it clearly is.

Tang v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

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

Defendants also have not established that qualified immunity precludes Tang’s procedural due process claim. … Instead, they fault Tang for not specifically pleading that the rights he asserts were clearly established.

Rogers v. Provident Hospital

241 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 13, 1965

Air Terminal Services, Inc., 85 F.Supp. 545 (E.D.Va.1949); clearly no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is presented here. … It is elementary that in order to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, there must be "state action" which results in a deprivation of a right, *637 privilege or immunity protected by that Amendment.

Whitney v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA)

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” County of Escondido v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, the court must assess “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Eldred v. McIlheran

164 Ill. App. 227 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 26, 1911

The character of the property sold, its disposition after the sale, the fact that the purchaser, who never took active possession of the same, was wholly inexperienced and in no way qualified for the conduct and continuation … Tbe fraud charged was thus clearly established and tbe decree of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.

Dent v. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

2020 IL App (1st) 191652 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2020

Constellation also improperly raised the affirmative defense of qualified privilege in its section 2-615 motion to dismiss. … A circuit court should not dismiss a [petition] under section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the [petitioner] to recovery. [Citation.]

Novick v. Vill. of Wappingers Falls

376 F. Supp. 3d 318 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

As pled, Plaintiff's request to be placed at headquarters for the duration of his cancer treatment is a plausible "accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not *339 clearly exceed its benefits." … Under this test, the Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL § 296.

Eagle Packet Co. v. Defries

94 Ill. 598 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 14, 1880

It was clearly the duty of defendant to provide means by which plaintiff could safely go from the boat to the wharf; and the fact that the stage-plank used for that purpose fell whilst plaintiff, in the exercise of due care … The evidence wholly fails to establish ordinary care on the part of the defendant to prevent the falling of the stage-plank. The jury properly found the plea of release was not sustained.

Scarpelli v. McDermott Will & Emery LLP

2018 IL App (1st) 170874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2019

-5-  historical development, it suffices here to say that the attorney litigation privilege is well established, and very much alive, in our law. … App. 3d at 642 (it affords complete immunity); accord Atkinson, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 832 (it is an absolute privilege).

Polland v. Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2025

Officers are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed at the time.” Phillips v. Cmty.

People v. Robinson

2013 IL App (2d) 120087 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 2013

Although defendant’s -4-  argument might have merit, an appellant must present clearly defined issues to the court, supported by relevant authority: this court … See 730 ILCS 150/2 (West 2008) (listing qualifying offenses). ¶ 17 With respect to element (2), defendant makes two arguments.

O'Brien v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2023

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff’s federal claims also fail on qualified-immunity grounds. … Plaintiff hasn’t shown that defendants violated his clearly established rights by using excessive force. 6 O’Brien also argues that the issue of qualified immunity cannot be decided

Perez v. McCray

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2025

She also argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the qualified immunity argument is denied as moot and Defendant Shebel’s motion (Dkt. 25) is denied.

La Salle National Bank v. American Insurance

14 Ill. App. 3d 1027 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 11, 1973

The witness was never qualified as an expert on the subject; indeed, he testified that he hired the experts to ascertain the cause. … Clearly, his statement, in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, would be insufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff.

Weiland v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.

Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1999

Section 360k clearly states “that federal requirements may pre-empt state requirements, but it says next to nothing about just when, where, or how they may do so.” Lohr , 518 U.S. at 505 , 135 L. Ed. 2d at 728 , 116 S. … TPSI, however, has not identified a single regulation or order promulgated by the FDA which established a specific requirement for its pacemakers.