Case law

Family Life Church v. City of Elgin

561 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 18, 2008

Summary Judgment Standard Every Rule 56 movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp. v. … under the Tort Immunity Act as well. 23 There is, however, a question whether the Tort Immunity Act should bar a claim against a municipal corporation brought under the later-enacted Illinois Act, in light of this provision

People v. Davisson

35 Ill. App. 3d 887 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 11, 1976

unlawful use of weapons and possession of controlled substances; however, when defendant was ultimately brought to trial, on the controlled substances charge alone, his wife testified against him in exchange for transactional immunity … Clearly the officers had probable cause to believe that other contraband would be likely to be in the car.

Pettengell v. Scott

369 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2019

Conspiracy claim; Monell claim; Claim against defendant Dumdie individually; and Qualified immunity The court need not address defendants' arguments they are entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiffs' conspiracy claim … immunity moot.

People v. Garcia

241 Ill. 2d 416 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 21, 2011

In Harden , the statutory language clearly applied to prior Illinois convictions but did not reference federal convictions. … Here, the statutory language clearly excludes time spent in custody from the 10-year limit, but does not reference exclusion of time spent as a result of a defendant's wrongful delay.

Caulkins v. Pritzker

228 N.E.3d 181 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2023

¶ 57 The exemption also applies to “Qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers,” defined under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (18 U.S.C … to acquire or possess a firearm/bearable arm under the Second Amendment and immunizes from criminal penalty other law-abiding citizens qualified to acquire or possess under the Second Amendment.

Daily v. Boudreau

231 Ill. 228 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

It was an instruction that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff did not tend to establish the cause of action and was not sufficient, in law, to sustain a judgment in his favor. … The judgment, however, should not be reversed and a new trial awarded if the verdict and judgment were clearly right and the plaintiff could not succeed upon another trial.

People v. Fox

294 Ill. 263 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1920

While the legislature may delegate to the county central committee power to divide the county into voting districts, yet that body must establish such rules for the exercise of the power as to protect the citizen and voter … In the organization and other proceedings of the county convention section 10 clearly gives to small wards or districts an unequal, unbalanced and controlling power, destroys the equality and freedom of elections and discriminates

Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Inc. v. Zehnder

302 Ill. App. 3d 661 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1998

The ALJ reasoned that “although applicant clearly intended to use the church for religious purposes, such intent, standing alone, does not establish that the church was in fact in exempt use under current Illinois law.” … Nevertheless, in order to qualify for exemption, a property must in fact be used for a religious purpose, however that purpose is defined. Skil Corp. v.

Benedictine Sisters of the Sacred Heart v. Department of Revenue

155 Ill. App. 3d 325 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 1987

Wright (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 272, 278 , 230 N.E.2d 846 , which states that “[exemption will be sustained if it is established that the property is primarily used for purposes which are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment … Clearly, under the amendment to the statute, the caretakers’ residences would not qualify for exemption as a “parsonage, convent or monastery,” as the caretakers do not fit into the category of “above listed persons who perform

People v. Clifton Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 24, 2001

Detective Richardson clearly qualifies as an expert. He testified at trial that he had been a Chicago police officer for 27 years and a gang specialist for 18. … Accordingly, consistent with established precedent, we believe that Richardson's evidence qualified as expert testimony.

People v. Woods

237 N.E.3d 1110 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 26, 2024

¶ 11 David and Funches testified before the grand jury in exchange for immunity. … As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues and argument clearly defined, and it is not our obligation to act as an advocate for defendant. People v.

In Re JR

341 Ill. App. 3d 784 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2003

Disclosure under the Notification Law clearly communicates truthful, accurate information about the offender to the public. … The respondent qualifies as a "sex offender" subject to the registration requirements of the Registration Act.

Smith v. Marvin

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 4, 2007

The law does not say how a reasonably well-qualified general surgeon would act under these circumstances. … It clearly and accurately instructs the jury to determine the standard of care based on expert testimony. This is a correct statement of the law. See Pantaleo v.

People v. Alvidrez

2014 IL App (1st) 121740 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 12, 2014

Thus, he was in no way qualified to render the opinion that defense counsel never asked him for in open court, despite the fact that it may have been in his written report. When the court qualified Dr. … The subject matter here was couched in biomechanical terms that he was clearly not qualified to render and would not have assisted the jury in understanding the evidence or made the question of defendant’s guilt

World's Finest Chocolate, Inc. v. World Candies, Inc.

409 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 1976

Once plaintiff has established incontestability under this section, and the defendant here has not disputed this allegation, the mark is immune from challenge in an infringement action except as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1115 … Such action was clearly done to harass the plaintiff and is, in this court’s opinion, contrary to the terms of the consent judgment.

People v. Shannon

2024 IL App (1st) 230042 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 2024

Instead, Gray’s “stipulation established the facts that the defendant had been convicted of two prior felonies and that those felonies were qualifying felonies ***.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. … The party challenging the validity of a statute “has the burden of clearly establishing a constitutional violation.” People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569, 596 (2006).

Esparza v. Verstraete

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2020

To determine if qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must assess whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and second whether that right was clearly established. Volkman v. … Accordingly, under the facts as alleged in the complaint, Esparza has not established that his rights against the search and seizure described were clearly established, and Defendants would have qualified immunity

Kogucki v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

698 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 17, 2010

That placed her in the “qualified” category with regard to the interviews; the lowest of three categories, below “exceptionally well qualified” and “well qualified.” (Def. St., ¶ 34; PL Res., ¶ 34). … Kogucki was really not as qualified as her competitors, they are hearsay.

Giesler v. City of Herrin, Illinois

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 1, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not applicable. … The Court looks at two things to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time

Merkel

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2026

Both the deposition testimony and the documentation clearly establish that Mia received two votes in favor and three votes opposed. … In this case, the record clearly establishes that the harassment was subjectively abusive.