Case law

Brummet v. Farel

217 Ill. App. 3d 264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 2, 1991

Summary judgment is proper only where the evidence, when construed most strongly against the moving party, establishes clearly and without doubt the right thereto. (Fisher v. Crippen (1986), 144 Ill. … The general rule, however, is qualified. It applies only when a party’s testimony, taken as a whole, is unequivocal.

Lancashire Insurance v. Corbetts

165 Ill. 592 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1897

This is clearly pointed out in an exhaustive opinion by Pitney, V. C., in National Fire Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 53 N. J. … We have established the doctrine in this State, as before shown, (Hannibal, etc. Railroad Co. v.

Norman v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

2020 IL App (1st) 190765 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2020

All notices or offers shall clearly show the date the offer or notice was sent.” Chicago Municipal Code § 5-14-050(a)(3) (amended Apr. 15, 2015). … Bank has not established that the trial court’s award was an abuse of discretion.

In re Johnson

480 B.R. 305 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 11, 2012

Rule 59(e) motions serve a narrow purpose and must clearly establish a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir.2008); Sigsworth v. … Thus, in this case, the Trustee has the burden of establishing that the Debtor cannot properly claim an exemption in the Adoption Tax Credit.

Mitchell v. Stonecasters, LLC

2018 IL App (2d) 180127 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 28, 2019

The agreement gave plaintiff and Stonecasters each the right to select one “Qualified Appraiser.” … Those two “Qualified Appraisers” would then jointly select another “Qualified Appraiser,” who would ultimately be solely responsible for determining the fair market value of plaintiff’s interest at the time

Steidl v. Walls

267 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 2003

as a decision involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.” … “Therefore, a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief simply because it has independently concluded that the relevant state court decision misapplies clearly established federal law.

Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue

384 Ill. App. 3d 734 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 26, 2008

It seems to us that confining the gift to the establishment of the hospital would make the gift dubious. … Clearly, in this context, “charity” does not mean compensated medical care; it means uncompensated medical care. Further, the corollary seems to be that if St.

Gill v. Shurtleff

183 Ill. 440 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1899

to,” there being no others so marked in the box, would have clearly identified the ballots which said illegal voters unlawfully procured to be put in the box. … “A person who votes without being qualified is a mere intruder and not entitled to the privileges which belong to legal voters.” (McCrary on Elections, 492.)

Kaelin v. Tenneco, Inc.

28 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 1998

In Cvelbar , the Seventh Circuit considered whether a severance package qualified as an ERISA plan. … The parties’ filings clearly are not 100% confidential.

People ex rel. Meyer v. Hazelwood

116 Ill. 319 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1886

Conceding, as we do, that this question is not entirely free from doubt, still the doubt must be solved in favor of the validity of the act, since we are not clearly satisfied that the objection is tenable. … The person elected must possess all the qualifications prescribed for either office, and he must execute bond and qualify as required for both, or he will forfeit his office.

One Equal Voice v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

333 Ill. App. 3d 1036 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 26, 2002

Accordingly, we review the Board’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard. … Without having considered the appropriate test to the given set of facts, we find that the decision of the Board was clearly erroneous.

Leibas v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 19, 2020

"A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … The doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect Defendant Reierson. C.

West v. Adelmann

260 Ill. App. 3d 455 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1993

Yoslow’s deposition clearly establishes that he believed that if defendant did have a duty to treat plaintiff after the 15th of March, then he deviated from the applicable standard of care. … We find that plaintiff has clearly established evidence which raises a question as to whether defendant, through his actions in treating and caring for plaintiff, established a primary physician-patient relationship.

Bohn v. Stubblefield

238 Ill. App. 453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 1925

It has not seen fit to take it from the electorate or qualify it in any degree and we must apply the law as given. … The legislative purpose clearly expressed is that in its corporate capacity the district may determine whether it shall or shall not have such property.

Suburban Bank of Hoffman-Schaumburg v. Bousis

144 Ill. 2d 51 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 30, 1991

Chrisoula argues that the savings account contract clearly established her legal interest in the account and, furthermore, that the contract may not be set aside merely because it might fail to represent the bank president … The evidence clearly establishes that the parties intended for the account contract, as written, to apply to the funds on deposit.

David Glen, Inc. v. Saab Cars USA, Inc.

837 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 1993

That section clearly limits its scope to a franchisee or motor vehicle dealer whose existing franchise or selling agreement has been terminated or cancelled. … a motor vehicle dealer without good cause.... 5 . 815 ILCS 710/4(e)(ll) provides, in relevant part: It shall be deemed a violation for a manufacturer, a distributor ... (11) to prevent or refuse to approve a proposal to establish

People v. Madison

56 Ill. 2d 476 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1974

Defendant further endeavors to establish bias, contending that a jury which is qualified to recommend the death penalty is more likely to convict. … In the present case defendant’s confession as well as substantial circumstantial evidence clearly established his guilt.

Chappell v. Board of Trustees of Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund

2020 IL App (1st) 192255 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 8, 2021

Klomann applies with full force in this case. ¶ 29 The record establishes that IMRF staff automatically accepted the Township’s pension eligibility certification and approved plaintiff’s Omitted Service … Clearly, plaintiff’s reliance on the acts undertaken by the Township and IMRF was not reasonable. Equitable relief is not warranted here. See Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corp., 398 Ill.

United States v. Serta Associates, Inc.

296 F. Supp. 1121 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 1969

The local restrictions clearly interfere with the retailers’ freedom to advertise at the price they deem best. … In 1954 the phrase “must properly qualify” was changed to “urged to properly qualify.” 8 .

People v. Young

128 Ill. 2d 1 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989

The prosecutor’s concern was clearly supported by the record. … Because the same aggravating factors which qualify a defendant for the death penalty (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(b)) also qualify him for natural life imprisonment (111. Rev.