Case law

People v. Rosenberg

267 Ill. 202 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1915

The People were not only required to prove the commission of the crime, which was conclusively proved, but were also required to establish the connection of the accused with it, beyond a reasonable doubt. … the operation and preservation of that system that the jury should be correctly advised as to the rules of law governing them, and no error Of the court in performing its duty can be overlooked or disregarded unless it clearly

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.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

348 Ill. App. 3d 823 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2004

Clearly, it may grant or deny a petition, or take no action on the petition. … With this consideration in mind, we do not believe appellants have overcome their burden of establishing the Commission’s order was unreasonable.

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.

Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago

407 Ill. App. 3d 837 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 18, 2011

Therefore, as this case presents a mixed question of fact and law, we must decide whether the Board’s decision is clearly erroneous. … Earls’ property tax bills clearly delineated the taxing districts where the proceeds of their tax assessment were to be directed.

Jiotis v. The Burr Ridge Park District

4 N.E.3d 514 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 22, 2014

Therefore, even if Pacanowski’s affidavit affirmatively established his immunity from liability under the Tort Immunity Act, the question of whether John Doe is liable, not liable, or immune from liability remains unaddressed … immune from liability under the Tort Immunity Act, which they have not done.

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.

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.

Sherman v. Township High School District 214

540 F. Supp. 2d 985 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2008

R.Civ.P. 8, and it clearly establishes that she has standing to complain about the constitutionality of the Act. … She clearly has standing as a plaintiff in this case. ADF’s motion to dismiss is denied.

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.

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.

People v. Startz

312 Ill. App. 3d 863 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 20, 2000

Specifically, he refers to section 70, which enacted a new statute regarding civil immunity from damages for hospital personnel drawing blood or urine at the behest of a police officer. … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of rebutting this presumption and clearly establishing a constitutional violation. Russell, 183 Ill. 2d 434 , 701 N.E.2d 1056 .

Ferkel v. Board of Education

45 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 2014

And the Reassignment Policy does not create a property interest; it only establishes procedures. … Instead, it clearly stated that the Policy would “be phased-in beginning in July 2009.”

Giannaris v. Frank

387 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 1974

Giannaris’ file was marked “resigned” to clearly show there was no allegation of wrongdoing. If Mr. … In the instant case a contractually established property interest simply does not exist.

Salvi v. The Village of Lake Zurich

66 N.E.3d 894 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 2016

Counts I, II, and III all allege trespass (willful and wanton in count I, negligent in counts II and III), which is clearly a tort applicable to private parties. … At the very least, plaintiff, who has the burden on this issue, has not established that the inference is unreasonable.

Holt v. Hendee

248 Ill. 288 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1910

In 1899 he qualified as executor of his father’s will, signing a bond in which he described himself as residing in Lake county, Illinois, and acted as such executor until November, 1903. … Louis Railroad Co. 76 id. 561, is quoted with approval: “In no event will an injunction lie unless it is clearly made to appear that the party has been wrongfully assessed and will sustain irreparable injury unless the collection

Carroll v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

147 Ill. App. 3d 909 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 22, 1986

Carroll’s deposition testimony, as well as the photographs of the shed, clearly reveal the contrary. … Thus, the evidence established the power lines were not hidden from view.

People v. Kellas

72 Ill. App. 3d 445 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 2, 1979

The question was held to be proper as bearing on whether his testimony was biased because possibly given under a promise or expectation of immunity or under the coercive effect of his detention by such authorities. … The supreme court held that the question propounded on cross-examination pertaining to the prior conviction was improper but not reversible error, since the record on appeal clearly established the defendant’s guilt. 10 Similarly

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

In Re AB

308 Ill. App. 3d 227 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 19, 1999

Over respondent's objection that it did not qualify as a business record, the trial court admitted the service plan into evidence pursuant to section 115-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code of Criminal Procedure … We cannot say that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record or that the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on the evidence presented.