Case law

Goral v. Kulys

21 N.E.3d 64 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 30, 2014

Whether Defendant's Acts Were in Furtherance of His Political Rights ¶ 36 The parties agree that the first prong is established in this case. … We conclude that defendant has met his burden with respect to the second prong of immunity under the Act.

In Re Marriage of Kehoe and Farkas

359 Ill. Dec. 477 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 2012

The parties clearly agreed upon a formula for calculating the pension apportionment during the time of dissolution. … These differences clearly demonstrate that the judgment in the case at bar was not "silent" in regard to the method of pension apportionment.

Maun v. Department of Professional Regulation

299 Ill. App. 3d 388 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 6, 1998

The party challenging the statute bears the burden of “clearly establishing that the statute is unconstitutional.” Rehg v. … On this evidence, an opposite conclusion is not “clearly evident.”

Disabato v. Board of Trustees of the State Employees' Retirement System

285 Ill. App. 3d 827 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 4, 1996

The legislature clearly made a decision to reward the service of those officers who remain on the force. … Thompson, 108 Ill. 2d 357, 371, 483 N.E.2d 1245 (1985)), in this instance the recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced State police officers.

Cress v. Recreation Services, Inc. Replaces opinion filed 1/28/03

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 2003

An "employee welfare benefit plan" is: "any plan, fund, or program *** established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or … These clearly are allegations that Donovan harmed RSI.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Pollution Control Board

127 Ill. App. 3d 446 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 6, 1984

The petitioners assert that only the IPCB can establish environmental control standards. We cannot agree that the rules enumerated delegate to the IEPA the authority to establish such standards. … Clearly, by referring to the Federal appendices, those provisions become a part of the Illinois regulatory structure.

Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel

356 Ill. Dec. 267 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2011

We conclude that they did not and that, therefore, the Act's immunity provision is not triggered. … If the legislature intended to condition the Act's qualified immunity on alterations in the "character" of the surrounding area, and not on "any" changed conditions in the surrounding area, it could have expressed such an

People v. Parker

2019 IL App (3d) 160455 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 12, 2019

The rules of evidence clearly show that this is not the case. ¶ 46 Foundation “is ‘evidence or testimony that establishes the admissibility of other evidence.’ ” People v. … There is no rule or statute mandating that such a foundation be established prior to trial, or that a witness be ruled qualified in a pretrial order.

People ex rel. Nelson v. Citizens Trust & Savings Bank

272 Ill. App. 444 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 21, 1933

its constitutionality.’ ” The reply brief indicates clearly that appellant now realizes the importance of the Trust Companies Act in the determination of this appeal. … The words “or deposit as hereinbefore provided,” and also the words “such deposit,” used in section 8, clearly relate to the term “deposit” in section 2.

Woodard v. Eubanks

94 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 8, 2000

state law malicious prosecution claim against the City of Chicago and the police officers had to be filed within a year after the claim arose, pursuant to the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity … And, we think, Illinois law clearly establishes that disposition by SOL will not support a malicious prosecution claim. See Adenekan v. Chicago Police Officers, 1996 WL 734705 (N.D.Ill); Ingram v.

People v. Lewis

105 Ill. 2d 226 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1984

The record does not clearly establish whether Kinser received the laboratory report in question. … However, he received immunity in exchange for his testimony at the Lewises’ trial and at Willie T. Sangster’s trial.

Piquard v. City of East Peoria

887 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 1995

To be “qualified individuals] with a disability,” Plaintiffs must establish that they are each an individual with a “disability” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2) of the ADA. … To prove they are disabled under the ADA, Plaintiffs must establish two components. First, they must show that they are persons having a qualifying physical or mental impairment. Flasza v.

Muni v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

891 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1995

Under the INS’ view, membership on a major league team does not by itself qualify an athlete as one having extraordinary ability, though it may help to establish that the athlete meets several of the criteria listed. … Yet the INS did not explain why the articles did not qualify as proof of Muni’s ability.

Corwin v. Abbott Laboratories

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 6, 2004

Abbott received immunity for its cooperation in the federal investigation. TAP pleaded guilty to the federal charge of conspiracy and paid $875 million in fines and penalties. … The record does not indicate that an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court's finding of a proper purpose is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Mason v. Peabody Coal Co.

320 Ill. App. 350 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 25, 1943

It is also equally established that the owner of the surface may, either in the deed conveying the mineral rights or by separate contract, agree to waive and release all damages caused by the loss of subjacent support. … Instead of specifying particular damages and injuries, it purports to give a general release of “all” claims, and the general character of the language used is not in any way qualified or' restricted by any other language

Bankston v. IDOC

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 14, 2020

Summary Judgment – Count I Denial of Religious Services Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count I because Bankston has no clearly established right for inmate-led … To defeat Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, the burden is on Bankston to demonstrate that the alleged violation of the Free Exercise Clause right was “clearly established.” Kemp v.

People v. Gocmen

2018 IL 122388 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2019

as an expert and must establish the effects of the drugs. … Clearly, he was incapable of driving safely, having driven his sport utility vehicle off the road while semiconscious.

General Motors Corp. v. State of Illinois Motor Vehicle Review Board

224 Ill. 2d 1 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 8, 2007

If a protest is filed, the manufacturer has the burden of proof to establish that “good cause” exists to allow the grant or establishment of the additional franchise. 815 ILCS 710/4(e)(8) (West 2004). … Whether the Board’s Decision Was Clearly Erroneous GMC next argues that the Board’s decision was either clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Armstrong v. Guigler

Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1996

The plaintiffs' action is clearly one for breach of a written contract and, thus, is governed by the 10-year statute of limitations established in section 13--206 of the Code of Civil Procedure. … The complaint set forth factual allegations establishing the defendants' breach.

Welch v. Johnson

147 Ill. 2d 40 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1992

As such, his successor, whether himself or someone else, has not been elected and qualified. This case is not moot. … It is well established that in order to preserve for appellate review an issue relating to the admission of evidence, a party must object at the time of such admission.