Case law

In Re March

71 Ill. 2d 382 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1978

There remains, however, the need to establish the existence of a use immunity which can be afforded to the attorney who, like respondent March, asserts his fifth amendment protections for the first time at the disciplinary … In my opinion, the respondent's position is clearly supported by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Spevack v. Klein (1967), 385 U.S. 511 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 , 87 S.Ct. *403 625.

Bowe v. City of Chicago Electoral Board

81 Ill. App. 3d 146 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 29, 1980

The facts in Williams are clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Williams, the objectionable petitions were circulated by three persons and contained approximately 6,000 names. … The court did not, however, establish any minimum or formalized standard of conduct required for substantial compliance with the oath requirement under the Election Code.

Human Rights Commission v. Rockford Township Highway Department

213 Ill. App. 3d 769 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 8, 1991

Fuzzell argues that the license suspension is irrelevant because the evidence clearly establishes that the Department was unaware of it at the time of the alleged discrimination. … The court held that the claimant had failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination and stated: “Walsh has not established at the outset that she was qualified for the job of a police officer.

Youakim v. Miller

374 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 1974

Section 5 of the Department of Children and Family Services Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1971, Ch. 23, § 5005, empowers the Department (“CFS”) and its Director to (a) establish rules and regulations concerning foster care; (b) accept … Defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the action is in effect against the State of Illinois and therefore is barred by the sovereign immunity provision of the Eleventh Amendment.

THOMAS M. MADDEN AND CO. v. Department of Rev.

272 Ill. App. 3d 212 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 18, 1995

In Van’s Material Co. the evidence established that four different components, sand, limestone, water, and cement, were put into the mixer drum of a ready-mix truck where they were changed into a new material, ready-mix concrete … As the slip form paver does not manufacture or assemble tangible personal property, we find the paver does not qualify for the manufacturing exemption of the Use Tax Act.

South Parkway Building Corp. v. South Center Department Store, Inc.

19 Ill. App. 2d 14 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 23, 1958

In view of the facts admitted, these two descriptions are clearly in conflict. … By a consideration of these cases it seems clearly established that the incorporation of a plat directly in a document, or by reference thereto, makes it a part of the document for the purpose of construction of the intention

Ziolkowski v. Continental Casualty Co.

263 Ill. App. 31 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 9, 1931

It was, therefore, admissible under the statute as prima facie evidence only of the fact that the stab wound of the heart occurred. in a fight.....The legislature clearly has the power to change or qualify the common law … The defendant further contends that the admitted evidence clearly establishes that the act of the Mexican was intentional, and that Part V of the contract of insurance is not ambiguous and does not cover loss of life if the

In Re Howard

69 Ill. 2d 343 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1978

In re Schwarz (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 334 , wherein the defense of testimonial immunity is held inapplicable in attorney disciplinary proceedings), we do not believe the facts of this case establish entrapment. … Clearly, then, respondent’s own testimony established that self-interest motivated his improper statements to the officer.

Costiloe v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.

245 Ill. App. 3d 896 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 1993

This is clearly the type of “agreement to the contrary” contemplated by section 1(a)(4). … Clearly, the payment of benefits does not absolve the employer from contribution liability.

Montgomery v. Centralia Correctional Center

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant seeks judgment in his favor on the defense of qualified immunity because Defendant argues that he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional … Qualified immunity shields “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 have

City of Monmouth v. Galesburg Printing & Publishing Co.

144 Ill. App. 3d 224 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1986

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that paragraph (b) contains a general requirement that information entitled to exemption must be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and that this general requirement qualifies … For example, where an informant’s life could be endangered by revealing his or her identity, the city would be able to establish a justifiable right to privacy.

Moore v. Streit

181 Ill. App. 3d 587 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 13, 1989

The court went on to state as follows: “To adopt the view that punitive damages in such defamation cases were dependent upon the allowance of actual damages, would be to allow a defamer some immunity because of the excellent … The court framed the paramount issue of the case in the following manner: “The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify

Pursley v. City of Rockford

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

They argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there was no underlying constitutional violation, but they do not address whether there was a clearly established constitutional right. … The invocation of qualified immunity shifts the burden to Pursley to show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 638-39 (7th Cir. 2021).

Road District No. 1 v. Beebe

231 Ill. 147 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

The third instruction given at the request of appellee, and the first, third and fifth given on the motion of appellant, clearly inform the jury that the use by the public must have been adverse, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted … This is said to be erroneous because the use by the public therein referred to is not qualified by a statement that such use must have been adverse, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted and under a claim of right for the

People v. Gant

58 Ill. 2d 178 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1974

The State then moved to grant and the trial court granted her immunity from prosecution, for “anything that she may testify to.” … In our opinion the evidence in this case so clearly establishes the guilt of defendant that any error in the admission of Officer Brown’s testimony regarding his hospital conversation with Mary Ward was, beyond a reasonable

Hoopingarner v. Stenzel

329 Ill. App. 3d 271 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 2002

Section 2 — 9 of the Act clearly establishes that an agent will only be liable if the agent acts in bad faith. Therefore, there must be some showing that the agent acted in bad faith. … We agree with the trial court that Hoopingarner failed to present evidence to establish bad faith by Stenzel as required by section 2 — 9.

Martin v. State

24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 6 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Feb 24, 1960

The court discussed the pertinent sections of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waive immunity of the sovereign. It cited 28 U.S.C.A. … The testimony in these cases clearly establishes that claimants suffered great monetary losses.

United States v. Moore

911 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 5, 1996

To the contrary, all the evidence indicated clearly that Moore refused to testify due to his fear of Furkin. … The Government, however, chose not to pursue that path and instead granted Moore immunity. .

People v. Tuson

49 N.E.3d 961 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 22, 2016

However, any belief that defendant may have had that the federal use immunity agreement protected him against state murder charges was unreasonable because his conduct clearly violated the terms of the federal … Murder and attempted murder qualify as prohibited criminal activities, and the record does not show that any federal agent or United States Attorney authorized defendant’s participation in those illegal activities

Gault v. Sideman

42 Ill. App. 2d 96 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 12, 1963

The gravamen of the action, in each count, is clearly the breach of this duty owing by the defendant to the plaintiff, and not a mere breach of the contract itself.” … We are here talking of a contractual arrangement to be entered into prior to the establishment of the relationship.