Case law

Mayol v. Summers, Watson & Kimpel

223 Ill. App. 3d 794 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 16, 1992

An attorney’s act or omission that is an error of judgment does not necessarily establish liability for malpractice. … Given the conflicting testimony, we do not find clearly evident a conclusion opposite that reached by the jury.

Metcalf f/k/a Heilman v. Burke

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2023

Heilman “cannot show that [the] facts fall under clearly established law that would overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. Summ. … Qualified immunity insulates public employees from liability for money damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Desai v. General Growth Properties, Inc.

654 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 17, 2009

But Asher does not establish a bright-line rule that would eliminate safe harbor protection for a company that clearly discloses the important risk factors but does not later update its investors in real time about its various … Freibaum’s statement that certain potential loans “could possibly aggregate $1.5 billion or even more” was clearly forward-looking.

Codan Forsikring A/S v. Conglobal Indus., Inc.

315 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Jun 4, 2018

The parties disagree over whether ConGlobal qualifies as a "carrier." … On its face, the amended complaint clearly covers the necessary ground.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2007

While the statutory list is not exhaustive, it establishes the characteristics of managerial rights that are not subject to mandatory bargaining. … If both the ILRB and the IELRB are entitled to equal deference under the clearly erroneous standard, both being uniquely qualified for the decisions with which they are tasked, why does the majority utilize the clearly erroneous

Embraer S.A. v. Dougherty Air Tr., LLC

348 F. Supp. 3d 246 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 2018

all parties in interest and that the legal and factual bases set forth establish[ed] just cause." … The timeline of events clearly establish this standard met in the present case. Dougherty sent its Revised Claim to Shuttle's bankruptcy representative on January 20, 2017. Verde Ex. 18.

Jordan v. Metropolitan Sanitary District

15 Ill. 2d 369 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1958

Standing alone, the enactment is unobjectionable, for, as correctly stated in the majority opinion, it is well established that the legislature may constitutionally determine a mandatory retirement age for public employees … Clearly, therefore, the corporate authorities are given an uncontrolled discretion to determine at what precise age after age 67 that any of its employees will actually retire.

Beaman v. Freesmeyer

2019 IL App (4th) 160527 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 17, 2019

Id. ¶ 51 The claims against Souk and Reynard were dismissed based on absolute immunity or qualified immunity. Id. at 506. … The court also found “the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to turn over the Murray polygraph report to the prosecution and Beaman’s defense counsel.” Id. at 510.

City of Champaign v. Department of Revenue

89 Ill. App. 3d 1066 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 31, 1980

The tax monies at issue in the instant case were clearly distributed under a mistake of fact, i.e., the location of the two establishments. … Stat. 1979, ch. 120, par. 443), or the two-year period contained in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (111. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 85, par. 8 — 101).

In re Katarzyna G.

2013 IL App (2d) 120807 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 15, 2013

“A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” … The notice referred to in section 2-102(a-5) of the Code certainly qualifies as a statement or explanation that must be given to a respondent.

Rose

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2025

As Rose is unable to pay the filing fee, and because nothing in the file indicates this action is clearly frivolous or malicious, the next step is to determine whether Rose’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief … Count I arises under Title II of the ADA, which provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,

People Ex Rel. Wangelin v. Gillespie

358 Ill. 40 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1934

While the assessed value for taxation purposes cannot be impeached merely because the assessing body and the court may differ as to the value of the property, yet where the evidence clearly establishes that a gross over-valuation … The evidence clearly establishes in the case at bar that the property of the appellant was grossly over-valued for taxation purposes.

Hedgepeth v. Britton

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on a qualified immunity defense. [53] at 14–15. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time. See Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 697 (7th Cir. 2023).

CARO EX REL. STATE v. Blagojevich

385 Ill. App. 3d 704 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2008

ANALYSIS To establish entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show (1) a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection, (2) that he will suffer irreparable harm without protection of that right, … More clearly, though, the trial court’s order states that plaintiffs “seek to enjoin the FamilyCare Program,” not just a portion of it.

United Stationers Supply Co. v. Zurich American Insurance

386 Ill. App. 3d 88 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2008

Zurich responds that United Stationers did not establish that it qualified as an additional insured under the CGL policy. Zurich argues that there was no written contract requiring D.C. … The certificate of insurance clearly provided that it was not part of the policy and that the insured had to look to the policy to ascertain the extent of coverage.” Kraemer, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 811 .

AM International, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

100 F.R.D. 255 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 1981

AMI objected, in whole or in part, to six of Kodak’s nine interrogatories on the basis of the qualified work product privilege. … Kodak claims that the information that it seeks is clearly relevant. The disassembly and modification may have developed facts establishing that Kodak’s Ektaprint machines do not infringe AMI patents.

Suburban 1, Inc. v. GHS Mortgage, LLC

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 20, 2005

Two days before the Jiangs accepted the Sullivans' offer, Kevin Morse, branch manager of Windsor Mortgage, signed a letter stating that the Sullivans qualified and were approved for financing of 90% of the sale price of the … A cause of action will not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved that will entitle the plaintiff to relief. Van Horne v. Muller , 185 Ill. 2d 299, 305 (1998).

Munoz v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 2025

Although a few portions of the In Camera Documents qualify for protection under the Privilege, the court finds that CCSAO has not established that all In Camera Documents qualify as predecisional or deliberative … Moreover, neither PII nor LEADS qualifies as a valid privilege or immunity and, as such, this information should not be withheld or described as “privileged.”

Brotherhood of Maintenance Way Employees v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.

383 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 1, 2005

The parties clearly disagree on the outcome of that determination, and as explained in Brown , this is a potentially dispositive issue. 254 F.3d at 661 . … .,” BMWE’s concession prevents them from establishing that the plaintiffs are qualified individuals entitled to relief under the ADA.

Carmichael v. Chappius

340 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2018

Washington qualifies as clearly established law. See Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 , 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ; Sellan v. … has been clearly established.").