Case law

Cook County Sheriff v. Bianchi

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 .

Anderson v. Department of Professional Regulation

284 Ill. Dec. 575 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2004

Gorchynsky to be more qualified and giving his testimony more weight, disagreed with the ALJ. The Board found that the following acts or omissions by Dr. … The Director’s decision was not clearly erroneous and therefore must be affirmed.

Nichols v. Fahrenkamp

2019 IL 123990 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2019

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (explaining that “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … ¶ 48 The facts of this case clearly demonstrate the flaw in Nichols’s claim.

Fortman v. Aurora Civil Service Commission

37 Ill. App. 3d 548 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1976

This is a patently specious argument, which, if accepted, could immunize from “moral turpitude” the acts of any drug pusher who merely feeds, rather than initiates, an addict’s habit. … The language of section 15.02, which lists causes for discharge (including subsection (j) under which plaintiff was discharged) clearly states: “The following grounds shall be sufficient cause for removal of an employee from

People v. Maiden

210 Ill. App. 3d 390 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Consequently, the evidence clearly established that defendant Rayford controlled the premises where the contraband was discovered. … In the case at bar, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous.

Burr v. Brooks

75 Ill. App. 3d 80 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 1979

Witnesses also testified that there are still significant numbers of indigent people in Bloomington who require medical and hospital care but are unable to pay for it and do not qualify for existing financial assistance. … Chicago City Missionary Society (1940), 375 Ill. 220 , 30 N.E.2d 657 , the court stated the following dictum: “A clearly expressed desire of the donor that his property be devoted to another purpose, unless execution of the

Mack Industries, Ltd. v. The Village of Dolton

30 N.E.3d 518 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2015

A motion to dismiss should not be granted "unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Tedrick v. … of Sleepy Hollow court, however, reasoned that section 2-201 does not always control because "[s]ection 2-201 begins with the phrase, '[e]xcept as otherwise provided by Statute' (745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 2000)), which clearly

People v. GRIHAM

399 Ill. App. 3d 1169 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2010

A double enhancement is not improper if the legislature clearly expresses an intent to allow it. People v. Owens, 377 Ill. App. 3d 302, 304 , 878 N.E.2d 1189, 1191-92 (2007). … The State chose to do so by establishing defendant had a 1996 felony conviction under the Controlled Substances Act.

Maki v. Frelk

85 Ill. App. 2d 439 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 26, 1967

He should use prudence and care, but failing to do so, and is guilty of negligence, he can not recover, unless the negligence of the defendant clearly and largely exceeds his. … No. 302, 18 Ill2d 11, 163 NE2d 89 (1959), where the court states at page 25: “The doctrine of school district immunity was created by this Court alone.

Beahringer v. Roberts

334 Ill. App. 3d 622 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 21, 2002

Count V claimed that both letters were returned to him with a notice that they must be delivered unsealed because they did not qualify as “legal mail.” … To prove the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, he is required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he possesses a certain and clearly ascertainable right which needs protection, (2) he would

Ford v. Blagojevich

282 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 15, 2003

In Abitbol , the Oklahoma Governor appointed an acting district attorney, until a permanent one was “appointed and qualified or elected and qualified, whichever occurs earlier.” Id. at 336 . … The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that Oklahoma law clearly mandated that upon resignation of a district attorney, the Governor, “ ‘shall appoint a qualified person to serve the balance of the unexpired term’ of the office

People v. Fiumetto

109 N.E.3d 756 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 12, 2018

It is not clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt intended for the illegal use of a controlled substance. See 720 ILCS 600/6 (West 2016). … Otherwise, any item that a person used to consume drugs would, without more, qualify as drug paraphernalia, irrespective of the definition set forth in section 2(d).

Milhime v. Brown

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 2025

Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). … A TRO may issue without notice only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can

Gomuluch v. Ameritech

48 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 1999

, or may reasonably become qualified, based on training, education or experience.” … Johnson’s communication— combined with the letter’s explanation that disability could not be established beyond July 1996 because Gomoluch had failed to submit any medical documentation after this time-—clearly put Gomoluch

People v. Hutchinson

2013 IL App (1st) 102332 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 21, 2014

Id. ¶ 22 In this case, Parker Little was qualified to provide the necessary foundational testimony for the admission of defendant’s blood alcohol report. … The statute clearly allows that “results of chemical tests performed upon an individual’s blood are admissible into evidence regardless of the time that the records were prepared.” 625 ILCS 5/11-501.4(a)(3)

Evangelical Hospitals Corp. v. Department of Revenue

223 Ill. App. 3d 225 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 30, 1991

ESC is a for-profit corporation and does not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C.A. §501 (c)(3) (West 1988)). … However, when ESC sold pharmaceuticals to an independent firm at a markup it was clearly not supporting charitable purposes.

S.O.S. Co. v. Bolta Co.

117 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 7, 1953

It appears from the briefs that this corporation is qualified! to do business in Illinois. … Chicago, it clearly would not be doing business in Illinois within the purview of the Act governing foreign corporations or so as to justify the service of process in the state.

Senese v. Village of Buffalo Grove

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 2008

If the term is given its full breadth, it clearly encompasses the conduct of the motorist whose vehicle struck plaintiff's and caused plaintiff's disabling injuries. … Presumably, however, a report of a crime in progress would generally qualify as an emergency.

Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook

123 F. Supp. 2d 1087 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 2, 2000

The explanations have not been rebutted, and they are clearly not pretextual. To begin with, there can be a difference between work that is satisfactory and work that is better than that. … The fact that an intervenor finished a job and received no complaint about the quality or the price does not establish that the intervenor was the best qualified bidder on that particular county job, let alone that it would

Stubbs v. Cunningham

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2020

Officer Bowker is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the relevant time that a prison official may violate the Eighth Amendment by ignoring a plaintiff’s complaints of pain and request … Officer Johnson is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the relevant time that a prison official may violate the Eighth Amendment by ignoring a plaintiff’s complaints of pain and request