Case law

Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 17, 2006

While the majority recognized Jones had clearly marked an X in the space for rejecting uninsured motorist coverage, it concluded Jones could not make an informed choice to accept or reject since the offer was not made … It happened in Stallman where the court decided to reconsider the parent-child tort immunity rule. Stallman, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 689.

Bond v. Aguinaldo

256 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 17, 2003

Bond seeks injunctive relief ordering that he be “schedule[d] to see medical personnel with qualified expertise for his serious medical problems and conditions.” Dr. Doughty and Dr. … Bond clearly alleges an ongoing violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, (Comply 3), Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez base their argument on the fact that there is no ongoing violation with respect to them; Mr.

Elk Grove Rural Fire Protection District v. City of Des Plaines

148 Ill. App. 3d 921 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 18, 1986

The trial testimony established that the District did not employ firefighters. … Specifically, Des Plaines argues that the District could raise additional revenue pursuant to the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev.

Johnson v. Loyola University Medical Center

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 2008

App. 3d 901, 910-11 (1996). “ ‘This is clearly a very difficult standard to meet, limiting the power of the circuit court to reverse a jury verdict to extreme situations only.’ ” Jones v. … This court upheld the entry of a judgment n.o.v. on the basis that the experts’ opinions failed to establish proximate cause.

Kinzer v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland

273 Ill. App. 3d 211 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 16, 1995

Patterson (1992), 154 Ill. 2d 414, 468 , 610 N.E.2d 16 (courts generally refuse to reopen what has been decided, and "a rule established as controlling in a particular case will continue to be the law, as long as the facts … Fidelity also failed to raise this defense until more than nine years after Kinzer filed her original complaint; thus, it was clearly within the trial court’s discretion to deny it as untimely. Turner v.

Noble v. Fickes

230 Ill. 594 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1907

But the evidence shows the deed was not intended to be absolute but to be qualified in its effect,—that it was not intended to convey the grantor’s whole interest, but that he meant to have a life estate unless the grantee … This case is clearly distinguishable from Cline v.

Snitzler-Warner Co. v. Stein

234 Ill. App. 392 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 7, 1924

If that be so, then Stein by the issuance of said certificate was a legally qualified stockholder of the company, and as such was entitled to purchase increased capital stock of the corporation by the note in question, provided … It is unnecessary to discuss the point, for wherever the burden of proof lay we think the evidence clearly establishes that the securities in question fell in Class “B,” and, therefore, were not subject to the provisions

John's Pro-Tree Service, Inc. v. Village of Dolton

2026 IL App (1st) 250027-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 29, 2026

Each part shall also clearly show the points or grounds relied upon under the Section upon which it is based.” Id. … or certain other evidentiary materials” establishing that it was immune.

Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital

50 Ill. App. 2d 253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1964

Compere is highly qualified. Colonna is authoritative. … Tbe trust funds of a charitable corporation are immune from liability for tbe torts of tbe corporation; except as to its trust funds, though, it is liable: Moore v. Moyle et al. (1950), 405 Ill 555, 92 NE2d 81 .

People v. Mallek

284 Ill. Dec. 734 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 14, 2004

Defense counsel then tendered a copy of the report to the court, commenting that the report found the defendant “fit and not qualified for an insanity defense.” … The trial judge noted that it had not been established by the evidence that one could pay for merchandise other than cigarettes or money orders beyond the checkout lanes.

Holman v. Carey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2022

Alternatively, Carey submits he should be awarded summary judgment because he is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from being monetarily liable unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Town of Libertyville v. Bank of Waukegan

152 Ill. App. 3d 1066 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 23, 1987

Section 4.02 of the Act permits townships which have been authorized by the voters to establish an open space program: “[t]o acquire by gift, legacy, purchase, condemnation in the manner provided for the exercise of the right … The statute clearly exempts real estate used for farming or agricultural purposes from condemnation.

Cadral Corp. v. Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz & Associates, Inc.

147 Ill. App. 3d 466 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 3, 1986

Final prices were established as of May 5, 1975. Once the prices were set, they were never lowered. … A verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the verdict is palpably erroneous and clearly unwarranted. (Lode v. Mercanio (1979), 77 Ill.

Arellano v. Department of Human Services

402 Ill. App. 3d 665 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 2010

or whether as applied to the facts the rule of law is violated — will not be overturned on review unless clearly erroneous. … The question remains whether plaintiffs condition otherwise qualified as an “emergency medical condition.”

Studt v. SHERMAN HEALTH SYSTEMS

387 Ill. App. 3d 401 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 2008

Galluzzo, 77 Ill. 2d 279, 282 (1979) (“In medical malpractice suits, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care through expert testimony”); Walski v. … A reviewing court ordinarily will not reverse a trial court for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant. Schultz v.

American Deposit Corp. v. Schacht

887 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Clearly, the regulation of the insurance industry is an important state interest. See supra at 1069. … Clearly, there is a traditional, insurance-product mortality risk to both the customer and Blackfeet.

Church of the Little Flower v. US Bank

979 N.E.2d 106 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2012

If the trust instrument’s language clearly expresses that intent, then we will adhere to that language unless contrary to law or public policy. Id. … Clearly, as US Bank contests this action aimed at terminating the trust, the cited provision of the Charitable Trust Act does not apply.

FDIC v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Illinois

692 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

It is well-established that the United States is immune from money damages suits except where it has statutorily consented to be sued. United States v. … FDIC, 506 F.2d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir.1974) ("[t]he FDIC is clearly a federal agency and within the coverage of the FTCA"); FDIC v.

Napleton v. Ray Buick, Inc.

302 Ill. App. 3d 191 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 1998

as in Section 2 of Article IV provided with respect to determination of the adjusted Basic Rent, or by a sole appraiser likewise selected and qualified as in Section 2 of Article IV provided. … While the affidavits may establish that the parties intended something other than what the language in the contract suggests, the statements of these individuals do not establish a latent ambiguity allowing the court to rely

The People v. McCracken

30 Ill. 2d 425 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1964

However, neither the constitution of the United States nor that of the Sate of Illinois forbids all searches and seizures, but the prohibition is only against unreasonable searches and does not extend to immunity from search … as laid in order to safeguard the accused against double jeopardy. • Although the rule stated in Mosby applies in every burglary case, our action there in reversing and remanding does not control here, because Mosby is clearly