Case law

Stewart v. Jeffreys

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2024

Qualified Immunity This Court analyzes whether the retaliation claims against Defendants Brookhart and Greentree are barred by qualified immunity. … Prison officials “‘are entitled to qualified immunity from liability arising out of conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

People v. McClellan

232 Ill. App. 3d 990 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1992

Ct. 1770 (death-qualifying questions are appropriate).) … The shoes clearly were sufficiently connected to defendant since he was wearing them at the time they were confiscated by the police.

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

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."

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.

Santos v. Curran, Jr.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 2018

Qualified Immunity Next, the Lake County Defendants argue that qualified immunity protects them from Santos’ claims. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.

People v. Rizzo

2016 IL 118599 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 25, 2016

“To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the statute must clearly establish that it violates the constitution.” Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d at 487. … In short, we find no due process violation. ¶ 48 In closing, we wish to again emphasize that one who challenges the constitutionality of a statutorily mandated “penalty” has the burden of clearly establishing

Kurczaba v. Pollock

252 Ill. Dec. 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 27, 2000

This privilege is a qualified privilege (53 C.J.S. Libel & Slander § 99, at 175 (1987)) and is commonly exercised by newspapers, broadcasting stations, and others in the business of reporting news to the public. … While defendant argues that he did not place any “spin” on his report, the addition of the ad was clearly meant to convey something.

People v. Bourlet

52 Ill. App. 2d 437 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1964

Defendant’s brief is primarily addressed to the contention that the state failed to establish that the defendant was sane at the time of the alleged crime. … In answer to this contention it appears to us that the trial court gave People’s instruction #14 and Defendant’s instruction #38 which adequately and clearly instructed the jury that upon presentation of an affirmative defense

Somers v. Quinn

373 Ill. App. 3d 87 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 25, 2007

Preventing the testimony of someone who had never been licensed in the school of medicine at issue or, especially, someone licensed in a different school of medicine clearly would tend to prevent the imposition of an improper … Thus, ‘[f] or mal academic training or specific degrees are not required to qualify a person as an expert; practical experience in a field may serve just as well to qualify him.’ Lee v.

People ex rel. Redman v. Wren

5 Scam. 268 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1843

But no such election has been had, and it is admitted that until the officers are elected and qualified, the county cannot be organized. … These provisions, when taken in connexion with the first section, qualify its operation, and clearly indicate the intention of the legislature, that the existence of Marquette, as a distinct county, should not take place,

Chemed Corp. v. State of Illinois

186 Ill. App. 3d 402 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 27, 1989

It never qualified to do business in Illinois as a foreign corporation and had no office, store, warehouse, or bank account in Illinois. … local business and also hold the immunities of an interstate business.”

In Re Detention of Samuelson

189 Ill. 2d 548 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 21, 2000

The party challenging a statute bears the burden of clearly establishing that it is unconstitutional. … We hold simply that the defendant in this case has failed to meet his burden of clearly establishing that those procedures are unconstitutional.

Dokos v. Miller

517 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 1981

Whether that impact results from the state’s desire to stem fraud or to “count resources,” 6 the rule clearly contravenes the federal law directive that only actually available resources be considered for eligibility purposes … Recipients of cash benefits under either program have qualified as categorically needy for Medicaid purposes.

Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc.

669 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 2009

Once an antitrust plaintiff gets around the immunity issue, which USI has done here by bringing its claim under both Walker Process and Handgards, it must still meet the antitrust pleading requirements. … Technologies Group, Inc., No. 03-232, 2004 WL 1427136 , at *6-7 (E.D.Pa., June 21, 2004) (noting that the Third Circuit has not held that litigation costs alone qualify as an antitrust injury).

Foster v. Alex

213 Ill. App. 3d 1001 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 28, 1991

Reliance is clearly required in a claim of negligent misrepresentation. On that point, we affirm the circuit court. However, we find it necessary to comment on the use of the qualifying term “justifiable.” … But, in the context of this case, “justifiable” merely calls for the plaintiff to establish that which he is already required to establish in order to, bring his claim — that defendant is a person who is in the business of

Cook County Sheriff Sheahan v. Bianchi

296 Ill. App. 3d 310 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 24, 1998

A passing score was established to be a minimum of 57 correct answers. … The sheriff took the position that when an employee was clearly shown not to have been properly certified, that employee could be fired at will, without a hearing. Vanko, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 303 .

Loftus v. Mingo

158 Ill. App. 3d 733 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 16, 1987

A cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle the plaintiff to recover. (Ogle v. … Such individuals do not fit very well into any of the more or less arbitrary categories which the law has established. They are not trespassers, since they are privileged to enter.

Berry v. Severit

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 23, 2020

Now, the Court must determine whether Berry established subject-matter jurisdiction. II. … Berry contends that § 1983 “clearly establish[es] the right to sue anyone who will violate constitutional rights . . . .” (Pl.’s Resp. 2) (emphasis added).