Case law

Selof v. Island Foods, Inc.

251 Ill. App. 3d 675 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 1993

App. 3d 637, 643 (right to file personal injury lawsuit was a purely personal right not involving clearly mandated public policy).) … It is possible that under qualifying circumstances a recovering alcoholic or substance abuser may conceivably have a statutory cause of action based on disability or handicap under State (see, e.g., Habinka v.

People v. Steele

231 Ill. 340 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

No' ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.” … But a railroad company has a franchise from the State, and the manner in which its business as a carrier shall be conducted is clearly under the control of the legislature.

Swank v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 13, 2003

Section 15--35 provides that property "used with a view to profit" does not qualify for the exemption. … Plaintiffs cite the burial purposes exemption for the proposition that the legislature has established property tax exemptions favoring for-profit enterprises.

Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1

381 Ill. App. 3d 207 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2008

Thus, we cannot determine whether the District would have immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. … To establish this claim of direct negligence, plaintiffs do not have to show that the attack was committed within the scope of employment.

People v. Mason

219 Ill. App. 3d 76 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 1991

Such evidence is admissible in cases where the proffered evidence is so clearly connected with the main issue in the case at bar as to tend to prove the accused guilty of the offense charged. (People v. … Such evidence has no relevance when a court decides whether a witness is qualified under section 115 — 14 to testify.

Burnette v. Stroger

329 Ill. Dec. 101 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 30, 2009

Immunity is provided by the Public and Appellate Defender Immunity Act for professional malpractice, other than wilful and wanton misconduct. 745 ILCS 19/5 (West 2006). … The president claims that this provision “does not clearly specify the appropriate mechanism by which an appropriation may be restricted or terminated.”

People v. Goodman

283 Ill. 414 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1918

The foregoing facts are not controverted, and the evidence clearly established beyond any doubt that the parties who burglarized the store and stole the goods were the parties named in the indictment, Kaminsky, Kleiman, Green … He established his good character by a number of witnesses,—bankers, farmers and various other business men.

Chaney v. City of Chicago

901 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 2, 1995

. § 1983 , based upon quasi-judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to allege a policy or custom which caused any constitutional deprivation, and failure to allege Sheahan’s personal involvement in the alleged … According to the complaint, it was only after Chaney retained new counsel that DNA tests establishing Chaney’s innocence were ordered.

Adams v. People

47 Ill. 376 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1868

The court qualified this instruction, and it is alleged as error, by adding as follows: “ Unless the jury further believe that the difficulty was commenced by the defendant for the purpose of taking the life of Bostic, or … While the doctrine is, as established by this court, in Schnier v. The People, supra.; Maher v. The People, 24 ib. 242, and Canfield v.

Levin v. Greco

415 B.R. 663 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 16, 2009

A district court reviews bankruptcy decisions under Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; questions of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, while questions of law and mixed questions of … The question on appeal turns on a strictly legal issue: whether a child representative in Illinois state court proceedings qualifies for the domestic support exception to discharge under the Bankruptcy Act.

Oak Forest Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. City of Oak Forest

27 Ill. App. 3d 303 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 17, 1975

Another qualified real estate appraiser called by plaintiff, Joseph A. … Trayser, a qualified planning consultant.

Shannon v. Swanson

208 Ill. 52 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1904

Some traces are found of an ancient rule of the common law making the age of a child the arbitrary test of competency to testify, but if it ever was well established it has long since fallen into disuse and become obsolete … In the concluding portion of the instruction the phrase, “if any you find from the evidence,” clearly refers to the words “offenses of the defendant,” found immediately preceding such phrase, and would, we think, prevent

Green v. Department of Public Aid

165 Ill. App. 3d 936 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 13, 1988

Whitney questioned why Green could not apply a portion of her noriexempt assets to the outstanding medical bills and thereby qualify for assistance. … Section 5 — 2 further provides: “The Department shall by rule establish the amounts of assets to be disregarded in determining eligibility for medical assistance, for which federal reimbursement is available under Title XIX

Lipinski v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners

114 Ill. 2d 95 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1986

It concluded that although the proposition submitted to the voters did not specifically refer to the statute or include the details regarding the organization and establishment of the RTA, voters could educate themselves … For these reasons the nonpartisan referendum does not qualify for placement on any ballot as an advisory referendum.

Stennis v. Armstrong

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when their conduct doesn’t violate a clearly established right. Smith v. … Clearly established doctrines place the constitutionality of conduct “beyond debate,” and qualified immunity protects officers with the exception of “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Arrington v. City of Chicago, Illinois

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Hernandez v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Bowes v. Alvarez

2024 IL App (1st) 230749-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 2024

¶ 28 The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is well-established in the common law of the United States. In Imbler v. … In his reply brief, he also argues that defendants were clearly acting as advocates for themselves, as opposed to the State.

Quality Saw & Seal, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

374 Ill. App. 3d 776 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2007

Section 2.3 does not specify a threshold amount of material to be “moved, removed, or otherwise displaced” for it to qualify as excavation. … Also, Quality Saw does not attempt to establish the ambiguity of section 2.3 before resorting to regulations, foreign statutes, and cases as interpretive aids.

People v. Cortez

338 Ill. App. 3d 122 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2003

Thus, the record clearly shows that the State filed its motion to dismiss beyond the time limit set forth in section 122 — 5. … Hendrix, 54 Ill. 2d 165, 169 (1973), where it specifically stated that “section 7 does not provide a grant of immunity from prosecution as a sanction for its violation.”

Benuska v. Dahl

87 Ill. App. 3d 911 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 22, 1980

Litigants are granted the right to examine prospective jurors on voir dire to enable them to select a jury composed of men and women who are qualified and competent to determine the facts in issue without bias, prejudice, … Finally, it was clearly prejudicial for the evidence pertaining to intoxication to be introduced all at once near the end of trial and out of the normal order of proofs.