Case law

Daka v. Director of Employment Security

2025 IL App (2d) 240294 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 1, 2025

¶ 50 Here, the Board’s decision to affirm the denial of Daka’s application for waiver was not clearly erroneous. … When the failure to report the school wages is discovered, an overpayment is established.

Whitlock v. Johnson

982 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 1997

Summary Judgment Standards Familiar Rule 56 principles impose on a party seeking summary judgment the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp. v. … It does not merely qualify an inmate’s right to call witnesses — it eviscerates that right. Two decades ago Hayes v.

Benjamin v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation

837 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 8, 2011

Specifically, plaintiff stated that Espinoza was “not qualified,” was “never around” and had no knowledge of the mortgage industry. PI. Ex. at 25. … Amendment immunity.

Willoby v. Mason City, Illinois

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2020

“The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established … Therefore, qualified immunity shields Francis, Dodson, and Miller from liability only if the constitutional right they are alleged to have violated was not clearly established in June 2017 when

Bandala-Martinez v. Fry

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Vanko v. Sheahan

278 Ill. App. 3d 302 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 21, 1996

Section 3 — 7008 provides that appointments to the position of deputy sheriff shall be made from the ranks of those applicants "who have been certified by the Board as being qualified for appointment.” (55 ILCS 5/3 — 7008 … This clearly presents a factual issue which in turn begs the question, by whom is it to be resolved?

Pliakos v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission

12 Ill. App. 2d 170 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 8, 1957

Standing alone, the paragraph clearly gave the State Commission authority to revoke as well as to issue licenses to retailers. … Although pursued by thousands, the business is not protected by the organic law and is not one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The traffic therein is permissive only. Saladino v.

State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc.

2024 IL 128763 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2024

“ ‘If a practice is within the per se category, all you have to prove to establish a violation is that the defendant engaged in the practice; you do not have to show that in fact the practice has had … Because Rahl appeared before the legislature as a proponent of the bill the legislature enacted, we find that his article qualifies as some evidence concerning the intent of the legislation. William N.

Newborn v. Morrison

440 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 1977

The procedure we must follow in this case was established in Mt. … More persuasive is defendant’s attempt to establish itself as a municipal corporation through statutory construction.

Rosario v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund

803 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 2011

or qualified immunity; (3) the claims are barred as res judicata or by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (4) plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983. … Assuming that plaintiffs could establish the first two elements, there is no way to satisfy the third element.

Clark v. Runyon

27 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 14, 1998

Again the United States’ (and hence Runyon’s) sovereign immunity requires the rejection of that claim. 6. … Finally, this Court is contemporaneously issuing the type of order that it typically promulgates in every newly-filed or newly-assigned case, establishing an initial status hearing.

Thornburg v. Crystal Lake Park District

171 Ill. App. 3d 329 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 8, 1988

Defendant waived its immunity from suit because it purchased liability insurance. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the village and county. … A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it clearly appears that there are no facts pleaded which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Zimring v. Wendrow (1985), 137 Ill.

People v. Trottier

2023 IL App (2d) 230317 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 2024

A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or if the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. … Defendant claims that his score of 2 out of 14 on the Assessment establishes his nearly nonexistent threat to the community if released.

Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

392 Ill. Dec. 275 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2015

That is something they clearly have authority to do in furtherance of the University’s educational mission. … Immunity from suit in the circuit courts is established by the Immunity Act, not the Court of Claims Act. See, e.g., Brandon v. Bonell, 368 Ill.

Dempsey v. Johnson

69 N.E.3d 236 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2016

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … an immunity to cover only negligence."

In Re Marriage of Perlmutter

225 Ill. App. 3d 362 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 1992

If, as the trial court found to be the case, H.C. acquired stock in HFSL, which in turn purchased Heitman prior to the marriage, H.C. clearly had to be established and in existence as some form of operating entity to do so … To summarize, the trial court basically concluded that Heitman qualified as marital property for two reasons.

Contemporary Music Group, Inc. v. Chicago Park District

57 Ill. App. 3d 182 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 20, 1978

Furthermore, immunity from the proper exercise of this power may not be granted by a contract of the State or a municipality. (City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Com. ex rel. Chicago & Western Indiana R.R. Co.) … Clearly, the resolution does not violate equal protection on its face, since it does not violate the special legislation provision (Ill. Const. 1970, art.

Mayes v. Elrod

470 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 18, 1979

to establish, “whenever feasible,” separate detention and commitment facilities. … This language creates alternative methods for establishing the requisite causation for § 1983 liability.

Brodsky

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2026

According to Brodsky, this language “clearly modified and limited the scope of the May 19, 2022 gag order,” freeing him to speak publicly about “any aspect of his representation of Peterson” not protected by the attorney-client … Brodsky argues that this action was “clearly outside of [Elward’s] role as a prosecutor, and therefore neither absolute nor qualified immunity apply.” Id. ¶ 6.

Whittington v. Hunt

296 Ill. 133 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1920

It has also become the settled policy of the courts to adopt that construction of a will that will give an estate of inheritance to the first devisee unless other limiting or qualifying clauses in the will disclose, clearly … and unequivocally, that it was the intention of the testator to limit or qualify the estate granted.