Case law

Jacobs v. Rush North Shore Medical Center

284 Ill. App. 3d 995 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 1996

The report itself must clearly identify "the reasons for the reviewing health professional’s determination that a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action exists.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 622(a)(1) (West 1994) … assigned negligence to Rush and Northwestern by 13 different means, including a failure to properly refer and treat Jacobs, failure to hire competent doctors; failure to train, manage, and supervise the doctors; and failure to establish

Stern v. People

102 Ill. 540 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1882

The defence is clearly without merit, and the "demurrer to the plea was properly sustained. … ,c, or until a successor to the removed treasurer shall be elected or appointed and qualified.

ALEXIAN BROTHERS HEALTH PROVIDERS ASSOC., INC. v. Humana Health Plan, Inc.

608 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 21, 2009

Evidence should be excluded in limine only when it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds (Jimenez v. United States, No. 06 C 5943, 2008 WL 3849915 , at *1 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 14)). … It is thus the movant’s burden to establish that the evidence sought to be excluded is not admissible for any purpose (id.).

Bernardoni v. Industrial Commission

362 Ill. App. 3d 582 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 6, 2005

In some respects, claimant did not qualify for such a diagnosis because one of the criteria is normal pulmonary test results, which claimant did not have. … Vetter was qualified to testify as an expert about causation.

Davis v. Hutchinson

282 Ill. 523 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1918

A provision against the alienation of property after granting a fee violates a long established rule of law. In Little v. … The will so clearly devised a fee simple estate to the adopted daughter and then attempted a restraint upon alienation that the rule as to such restraints being void must be applied and enforced.

People ex rel. Morris v. Opie

301 Ill. 11 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1921

It was held that the curative act did not grant any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise and therefore did not come within the constitutional prohibition. … territory provided that an election therein might be held dispensing with the safeguards of the Ballot law in respect to opening and conducting the election, and the district should be legally organized thereby, it would clearly

In re Stone

504 B.R. 908 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 2014

In order to qualify for the “tools of the trade” exemption under 735 ILCS 5/12 — 1001(d), a debtor must be engaged in a trade. … Nor can an attorney’s willingness to bear the burden of reproach provide blanket immunity to a debtor; it is well settled that reliance upon advice of counsel is, in this context, no defense where it should have been evident

Haywood v. Illinois (In Re Haywood)

62 B.R. 482 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 1986

The foregoing clearly establishes that the debtor was required to file amended State income tax returns after the adjustment to his federal income tax returns became final. … Clearly they were not fulfilled by the State, nor could they be. The State’s work papers cannot possibly constitute a filing under applicable State law.

People v. Schoo

55 Ill. App. 3d 163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 2, 1977

On appeal he contends (1) that the witness who testified for the State identifying a substance as containing cocaine was not qualified as an expert; (2) that the State failed to establish a proper chain of possession of the … In that event both the trial court and the State would be clearly advised, as they are entitled to be, and defendant would be assured of either his trial or his discharge.

Butler v. United States

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 2024

The court agrees that, as currently written, Plaintiff’s allegations do not clearly assert “gross” or “willful and wanton” negligence.2 But that makes no difference in this case; Section 22/10 is not clearly applicable … But Plaintiff is not alleging harm arising from “imposition or establishment” of a quarantine.

Beverage v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

429 Ill. Dec. 517 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2019

Based upon the results of the Labor Market Survey, [he] would not be a qualified candidate." … Thus, the Commission concluded that the claimant was prevented from establishing "what he is capable of earning." ¶ 42 Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent regarding the Commission's

People v. Cisneros

996 N.E.2d 163 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 11, 2013

Next, defendant argues that Gomez’s injuries cannot qualify as great bodily harm because they were not greater and more serious than our supreme court’s definition of injuries qualifying as bodily harm. … Clearly, the supreme court was differentiating battery by bodily harm from battery by insulting or provoking contact.

In Re Custody of Dykhuis

131 Ill. App. 3d 371 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 12, 1985

The evidence presented in the instant case clearly did not support these criteria. … Giving a census of the number of people living with a child in the same house does not qualify as sufficient proof of integration.

Johnston v. City of East Moline

338 Ill. App. 220 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1949

If a municipality in the operation of traffic signals is engaged in a governmental function, then it is immune from tort liability, while on the other hand, if the installation, operation and maintenance of traffic signals … It is safe to say the line between municipal operations that are proprietary and therefore a proper subject of suits in tort, and those that are governmental and therefore immune from such suits, is not clearly defined.

Higgins v. Lake County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, The

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Hamm bases her last argument for dismissal on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Leskovisek v. Ill. Dep't of Transp.

305 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2018

"[T[o establish injury in fact when seeking prospective injunctive relief, a plaintiff must allege a 'real and immediate' threat of future violations of their rights." Scherr v. … Illinois has legislatively waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims for damages under the ADA. See 745 ILCS 5/1.5(d) ; Painter v. Ill.

Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center

357 Ill. Dec. 953 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 6, 2012

To qualify as a clear mandate of public policy, "a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) … Illinois Rule of Evidence 902(11) defines a qualifying certification with respect to a domestic record, in part, as "a written declaration under oath subject to the penalty of perjury."

Quick v. Village of River Forest

130 Ill. 323 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1889

Their duties require as much honesty and fidelity where they are not sworn, as if they were acting under oath, and we think it would be establishing a dangerous rule to allow such persons to come upon the witness stand and … They were not parties to the suit, and what they may have said could not be binding on the village, and if they were not competent to testify to what they did, as we have seen they were not, clearly resort could not be had

Sutton v. Findlay Cemetery Ass'n

270 Ill. 11 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1915

Their testimony is too voluminous to set out, but it showed them to be familiar with the subject about which they were testifying, and qualified, from knowledge and experience, to express an opinion qs to the effect on the … the fact so clearly and free from substantial doubt as to have justified enjoining, in this proceeding, the use of the land as a burial ground.

Bybee v. O'HAGEN

243 Ill. App. 3d 49 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 1993

The Act establishes specific duties for both owners and tenants: “It shall be the responsibility of the owner of a structure to supply and install all required detectors. *** It shall be the responsibility of a tenant to … There is now an exception to the general rule of landlord immunity; tenants have a cause of action where their landlord has violated the Act. II.