Case law

Vogel v. Sullivan

735 F. Supp. 1353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 1990

To qualify for full old-age insurance coverage under 42 U.S.C. § 402 (a) (1982 & Supp. … For the single-room tenant, the claimant clearly provided sufficient services, but that income alone would not qualify her for benefits; the question before the court, then, was whether her activities with respect to the

Quinones v. Coler

651 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 5, 1987

Because plaintiffs have alleged such wrongful denials were caused by IDPA’s noncompliance with Reg. § 272.4(b) (Complaint 1Í17), they clearly have established a case or controversy for relief from such violations. … No speculation is needed to recognize that most of the named plaintiffs will have to apply or reapply for food stamps in the future and will be qualified to receive them under the Act.

Batka v. Board of Trustees of Orland Park Police Pension Fund

186 Ill. App. 3d 715 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 1989

Moreover, certain of the remarks were clearly taken out of context. … The Board here found that plaintiff was not disabled from service as a police officer and did not, therefore, qualify for either “line-of-duty” or “not-on-duty” benefits. (See Ill. Rev.

United States v. Johnson

125 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 7, 2000

The defendant must make an offer of all three elements to qualify for a hearing. See id. Mr. Johnson falls short on the offer of proof. … Johnson has not made a sufficient showing to qualify for a Franks hearing. II. Mr. Johnson also claims that the search warrant is facially invalid because the two supporting affidavits do not establish probable cause.

Carroll v. Vernon (In Re Vernon)

192 B.R. 165 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

Each element must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan, 498 U.S. at 285 , 111 S.Ct. at 658 . 12. … That clearly posed a threat to its fees, both those *173 earned in the past and those about to be earned.

Jano Justice Systems, Inc. v. Burton

636 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2009

Next, the Clericus Magnus software qualifies as a “trade secret.” … Therefore, Jano has adequately established irreparable harm. Similarly, Jano has shown the inadequacy of legal remedies.

Marth v. Illinois Weather-Seal, Inc.

50 Ill. App. 3d 577 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 17, 1977

It is well established that the trial court is in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented. (Schulenburg v. … Based on the record before us we cannot say that a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trial court is clearly apparent.

Chambers v. DeBois

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 2018

However Debois contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because this tort was not clearly established at the time of the evidence fabrication. … based on the 13-year-old Jones decision, the police were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Shearer v. Hulick

150 Ill. App. 3d 1098 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 31, 1986

It has long been established in Illinois that the findings and conclusions of an administrative agency on questions of fact are prima facie true and correct and that, on review, the scope of our inquiry is limited to ascertaining … However, as this court has stated before, the agency’s decision will be deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence if it appears from the record that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. (Williams v.

In re Marriage of Murray

12 N.E.3d 155 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 11, 2014

App. 3d 78, 80 (1994), the Conservation District argues that the penalty prescribed by section 35 of the Withholding Act qualifies as “ ‘punitive or exemplary damages’ ” under section 2-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. … ¶ 50 Further, denying the Conservation District immunity from a penalty under section 35 of the Withholding Act would contravene the well-established policy of section 2-102 of the Tort Immunity Act by holding taxpayers

Johnson v. Armstrong

451 Ill. Dec. 1021 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2021

those would be closer to the retractor than the branch to the medialis, which is further medial; and the fact that the article [presented to Bal by defense counsel during the deposition] clearly … Advocate argued that Johnson had not disclosed a nursing expert and Bal was not qualified to give an opinion as to the standard of care for a surgical technician.

Morgan v. C U N A Mutual Insurance Society

242 Ill. App. 3d 1027 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 2, 1993

It clearly states that an insured must suffer a total and permanent disability prior to age 60 in order to be entitled to benefits. … The policy definition of total and permanent disability is an illness or injury which prevents the insured from working at his job or any job for which he is qualified.

Mills

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 12, 2026

Under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must now screen Mills’s Complaint and dismiss the Complaint if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 … Deputy Capeheart was clearly acting at the direction of Judge Foster, so he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Mills’s claims against the remaining Defendants also fail.

Conroy v. City of Chicago

644 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2009

Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 584 (N.D.Ill.2000) (“If the cited material does not clearly create a genuine dispute over the movant’s allegedly undisputed fact, the nonmovant should provide an explanation.... … The nonmoving party must offer more than “[cjonclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts” in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Payne v.

Linblom v. Ramsey

75 Ill. 246 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1874

The merit of his claim was recognized, and the order was qualified as above stated. … The possession of plaintiff, the trespass and injury to his crops, were clearly shown. Hpon these, the elements of the cause of action, the evidence was undisputed.

People v. Crump

2018 IL App (3d) 160124 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2019

If we find the records were properly admitted, we will then consider de novo whether they establish that the breath test machine at issue “was tested for accuracy and working properly on the date the test was … In addition, Trooper Sheldon certified the breath test machine as accurate in the logbook on June 5, 2015. ¶ 31 In sum, the State’s exhibits, which were properly admitted into evidence, clearly show that

Village of Maryville v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

402 Ill. App. 3d 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 2010

In light of the existing law on this topic, the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous. … If the Village of Maryville is not able to establish facts supporting its claim that its sergeants qualify as supervisors under the Act, the employees at issue should not be found to be supervisors.

Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Gray

122 Ill. 630 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1887

It is incumbent on the plaintiff to show clearly a legal right to institute and carry on the suit. To this end he should show his appointment (as receiver) by a decree which is conclusive as against the defendant. … There was no purpose in that case to depart from the well established general rule, that a court acquires jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of corporate assets by service of process upon the corporation.

Goodrich v. Tenney

19 L.R.A. 371 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1893

The specific prayer of this bill is, “ that the said contract so delivered to said defendants may be restored to your orator, and the rights in and under the same may be established and confirmed, and the said release so … Smith was brought back from Canada, secured immunity from arrest for his fraud, his debts cancelled, if he would testify as required, and it is apparent from the bill that he at least claimed a portion of the money, and was

People v. Island

385 Ill. App. 3d 316 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 2008

On cross-examination, Harris testified that he was granted immunity for his testimony at trial. … He agreed that he refused to testify in this case and that he was offered immunity by the State for his testimony. He also agreed that he again refused to testify even after he was offered immunity.