Case law

Snyder v. Curran Township

281 Ill. App. 3d 56 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 1996

defendant consistently denied that it had.” •2 Because section 2 — 1108 of the Code is ambiguous regarding the specific requirements of a proper special interrogatory, and because decisions interpreting that section do not clearly … Section 11 — 304, by mandating compliance with the Illinois Manual, establishes defendant’s duty of reasonable care.

McCoy v. IDOC Transfer Coordinator

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Mennerich claims he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Flournoy v. Fairman

897 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 1995

immunity, and that Fairman is potentially liable in his official capacity. … Was Denial of Visitation Punishment To establish a claim of unconstitutional punishment a pretrial detainee must establish either a punitive motive on behalf of the prison officials or, absent such evidence, that the prison

Miller v. Davidson

8 Ill. 518 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1846

This, however, is not out of regard to the one who claims immunity from having violated the law, but it is because he who complains is equally guilty. In the case of Holman v. … Here, then, we see, that although a trust may be created in violation, and clearly in fraud of the law, still the trustee shall not be permitted to hold the trust estate discharged of the trust, although the cestui que trust

Smith v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2022

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that summary judgment should be awarded in their favor because they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity … To evaluate the defense of qualified immunity, the Court determines whether Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that specific constitutional right was “clearly established at the time of the

In re 35th & Morgan Development Corp.

510 B.R. 832 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2014

“Qualified Creditor.” … The Alleged Debtor is clearly not generally paying its debts as they become due. CONCLUSION The petitioning creditors were entitled to bring the involuntary petition against Alleged Debtor.

People v. Allison

236 Ill. App. 3d 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 1992

Further, other than the unanswered question, there was no limitation on defense counsel’s opportunity to establish the witness’ bias. … “It is well established that questions concerning the admission of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and that its decision should not be reversed unless such discretion has been clearly abused.

Byrd v. Hamer

408 Ill. App. 3d 467 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 28, 2011

Illinois State Board of Elections, 232 Ill. 2d 231, 243-44 (2009) (“An agency’s application of a rule of law to established facts is a mixed question of law and fact and will not be reversed unless it is deemed ‘clearly … “The party challenging a statute carries the burden of rebutting that presumption and ‘clearly establishing’ its unconstitutionality.” Id. (quoting Russell v.

People ex rel. Dinneen v. Bradford

267 Ill. 486 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1915

This power, however, has not been delegated to the other commissioners or the council but has been expressly reserved to the electors themselves, and under the well established rule that the express mention of one thing is … The express designation of the officers and employees which the council may remove and the express exemption of the commissioners from such class also clearly show that the power of removal of duly elected commissioners was

Cianci v. Pettibone Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 31, 1998

App. 3d 662, 669 (1995) (statements made in reports to worker's compensation insurers protected by qualified privilege because insurers "clearly have an interest in determining the validity of worker's compensation claims … Nowosad also argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that Hall's statements enjoyed a qualified privilege.

Linton v. Godinez

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 6, 2019

Furthermore, because Crain did not violate Linton’s clearly established constitutional rights, Judge Sison also recommends that the undersigned find she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Schuman v. Chicago Transit Authority

407 Ill. 313 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1950

Section 22 of article IV of our constitution prohibits the General Assembly from passing any local or special law granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise … Unless the legislative action is clearly unreasonable and there is no legitimate reason for the law which would not require with equal force its extension to others whom it leaves untouched, the courts do not interfere with

United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

350 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 1972

The complaint further alleges: In so establishing Area 43 the defendants isolated or segregated the bulk of the Negro population of Chicago and established for those persons substantially higher automobile insurance rates … Plaintiffs urge that the three cases cited hereinabove, inter alia, clearly demonstrate that there is no requirement of exhaustion of remedies in suits brought under the Civil Rights Acts.

Pochie v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 25, 1997

qualified, legal and registered voter at that address." … We further disagree with petitioner's argument that the petition and the records of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners clearly indicate that Pochie does have standing.

Illinois Beta House Fund Corporation v. Illinois Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 25, 2008

The clearly erroneous standard requires us to give some deference to the agency’s expertise and experience with the statute it is charged with administering. Rogy’s, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 770. … In an attempt to establish that the fraternity is “assist[ing] the university’s mission,” it argues “the University actively pursues links with and supervises the fraternities on campus, including the [Illinois Beta Chapter

People v. Matthews

299 Ill. App. 3d 914 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1998

The prosecution in this case chose to use evidence of the defendant’s membership in the Blackstones street gang to establish motive. … Clearly the jury chose to rely on witness testimony and other circumstantial evidence to convict defendant. Defendant also challenges Royal’s testimony as “unreliable and incredible.”

Weber v. Village of Hanover Park

768 F. Supp. 630 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 1991

Robert contests the existence of a qualified privilege here. … Such abuse can be established by a showing that the defendant made the allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice.

American Welding Supply Co. v. Department of Revenue

106 Ill. App. 3d 93 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 16, 1982

not become a part of the pollution control facility and so would not qualify for the pollution control facility exemption.” … not become a part of a pollution control facility so as to qualify for the exemption.

Cervantes v. Perryman

954 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 10, 1997

Thus, even under *1265 the interpretation of the statute advanced by the Plaintiffs, they still do not qualify for the relief they seek. … The Court may not issue a writ of mandamus ordering a federal official to perform any function that the official is not clearly directed by law to perform. Save the Dunes Council v.

People v. Howard

78 Ill. App. 3d 858 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 27, 1979

Gilroy was offered immunity by the State in return for his testimony at defendant’s trial. … Moreover, the defect dotes not qualify as an exception under Supreme Court Rule 451(c) (58 Ill. 2d R. 451(c)) because it is not a substantial defect.