Case law

Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. Argentine Republic

637 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 7, 1986

They clearly were. Despite that, Magnus Mem. 15 n. 8 suggests the dismissal of Magnus I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction has no res judicata effect on Magnus’ present action. … After Magnus files the Rule 11 statement described at the end of the preceding section, this Court will establish the procedures appropriate to carry on from that point.

Long v. Retirement Board of Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

391 Ill. App. 3d 681 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2009

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 532 . A. … impression the resolution of which was not clearly foreshadowed.

Illinois State Treausrer v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

391 Ill. Dec. 18 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2015

immunity with regard to workers’ compensation matters … ¶ 33 This waiver of immunity is not absolute, but in those limited instances where the legislature wished to preserve its immunity and exempt the State from the normal requirements of the workers’ compensation

People v. White

2011 IL 109689 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2011

That procedure required a two-step sequence for resolving government officials’ qualified immunity claims. … Saucier required that the analysis of a qualified immunity issue be undertaken in that specified sequence.

In re Fatima A.

2015 IL App (1st) 133258 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2015

Knox that Fatima did not qualify for specialization. … Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. ¶ 60 And finally, mixed questions of law and fact are questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether

International Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk

665 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 1987

Small Commercial Establishment Defendant also fails to qualify under § 110(5) because the Orbit is not the type of small commercial establishment protected by the exemption. … With 2,640 square feet of space, the Orbit is more than four times the size of the small fastfood store in Aiken and hence too large an establishment to qualify under § 110(5). See Gap Stores, 516 F.Supp. at 925 .

Wells v. Travis

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 16, 1996

The court reasoned: "Holding that the limitation period is not triggered until a prospective malpractice plaintiff secures an expert witness qualified to testify to the described necessary elements for a prima facie case … would clearly extend the limitation period unduly and leave the four-year period of section 13--212, after which a defendant has absolute repose, as the only substantial protection that such a defendant would have against

Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort

166 Ill. 2d 155 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 1995

The appellate court also opined that the costs of guarding against injury "clearly suggest the imposition of a duty in the pedestrian-defect type of case." ( 258 Ill.App.3d at 433-34 , 196 Ill.Dec. 591 , 630 N.E.2d 526 .) … Although we are sympathetic to plaintiff's injuries, the Illinois legislature has established a clear public policy to immunize government from the financial burdens of preventing injuries which occur as a result of unintended

People v. Fane

454 Ill. Dec. 805 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2021

According to the instruction’s unambiguous language, a witness does not qualify as an “accomplice” - 15 -  for purposes of IPI Criminal No. 3.17 unless he commits … Norman’s credibility was clearly suspect, and in such a case, the trial judge should have discretion to decide whether to advise the jury to accept an accomplice’s testimony with caution.

Chemicals v. BMW Constructors, Inc.

353 Ill. App. 3d 593 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2004

Accordingly, BMW’s immunity to suit by Wood does not bar Equistar’s contribution claim against BMW. … So while the case clearly established the principle, it does not address the particular fact situation with which we are faced.

In Re Berwick Black Cattle Co.

394 B.R. 448 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 23, 2008

This is not “blanket immunity” for all times, all transgressions, and all omissions. Nor does the immunity affect matters beyond the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court or unrelated to the reorganization itself. … That notice was clearly deficient, however. Even if it had been adequate, notice of a substantively inappropriate release cannot transform it into an appropriate one.

Bruss v. Przybylo

385 Ill. App. 3d 399 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2008

The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. … The court refused, holding that the abstention doctrine “presupposes that the religious organization itself has acted before immunizing the decision from judicial review.” Vann, 452 F. Supp. 2d at 655 .

McGuire v. Chicago Transit Authority

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2020

fail to establish a prima facie case of retaliation; and (3) Bonds is entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff can defeat a qualified immunity defense if: (1) he adequately alleged facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Hansen v. Caring Professionals, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 20, 1997

Hospitals and other health care facilities contracted with Caring Professionals to obtain qualified nurses to fill temporary vacancies. … The Act does, however, clearly establish a negligent hiring claim by a health facility against the nurse agency. For that purpose, the referred nurse is an "employee" of the agency.

In Re Marriage of Richardson

255 Ill. App. 3d 1099 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 1993

On appeal, court ruled that child’s home State was established in Missouri six months after the move).) … Given Brandi’s life history and the history of custody litigation in this case, John suggests that all three States, Illinois, California and Arizona, would qualify under subsection (1); California most clearly qualifies

Winkelman v. Magne

173 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 2001

However, Winkelman is clearly incorrect as this is not the state of the law. … Again, the Seventh Circuit has clearly held that “[wjhatever may be the case under labor and civil rights statutes, Mt. Healthy establishes the approach for litigation under the first amendment.” Gooden v.

Jackson-Hicks v. The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners

2015 IL App (5th) 150028 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2015

“[F]actual determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” … The “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies to mixed questions of law and fact. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

2014 IL App (1st) 130544 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2014

Instead, the party must show that the opposite conclusion was clearly evident. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 289 Ill. … Furthermore, ComEd does not show that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.

Hoskins v. Swisher

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 31, 2023

immunity, which is a doctrine that “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 … In other words, qualified immunity does not shield a government official if the alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly established at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th Cir. 2012).

Bueno v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

578 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 1983

Plaintiff Bueno clearly lacks standing to make the third request. … established at INS.