Case law

City of Batavia v. Sandberg

286 Ill. App. 3d 991 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 1997

Upon a municipality’s determination that an area qualifies as a redevelopment project area as defined in section 11—74.4—3(p) of the Act, it may then develop a redevelopment plan. … The Teska Report’s description of the redevelopment project as conservative was clearly not intended as a limit upon property identification or procurement.

Ernzen v. Board of Trustees

96 Ill. App. 3d 1143 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 1981

I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s claim for disability pension was clearly supported by the manifest weight of affirmative evidence in the record. … The manifest weight of the evidence in the record rests upon the opinions of two qualified physicians, each of whom made a thorough study of the current literature in the field.

Friedman Electric Co. v. St. Clair County Housing Authority

23 Ill. App. 2d 16 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 27, 1959

It was plaintiff’s burden to establish its compliance with the contract. … We have spent long hours studying the record here, and we cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the plaintiff, on this whole record, clearly has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

East St. Louis Federation of Teachers, Local 1220 v. East St. Louis School District No. 189 Financial Oversight Panel

178 Ill. 2d 399 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1997

Section 1B — 20 clearly identifies the nature of the discipline and the parties to be disciplined. … We find no need to discuss any longer a clearly unsupported argument, and we reject it. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7).

Leadertreks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

385 Ill. App. 3d 442 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 19, 2008

The Department appeals, arguing that the Department’s decision was not clearly erroneous. We agree and reverse the circuit court. … The Failure to Establish That the Property Was Not Used Primarily With a View to Profit The Department asserts that LeaderTreks did not establish that its property was not used primarily with a view to profit, because it

Miller v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

374 Ill. App. 3d 188 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 2007

To establish title by adverse possession as provided by section 13 — 101 of the Limitations Act, the party must possess the disputed land for 20 years. 735 ILCS 5/13 — 101 (West 2000). … App. 3d 750 (1990) (holding that parking lot did not qualify as a “public use” as defined by Brown.)

Samoylovich v. Montesdeoca

13 N.E.3d 90 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 2014

it would be clearly wrong. … To determine whether a lawsuit qualifies as a SLAPP, thus activating the Act’s protective mechanisms, the legislature articulated a test, the first part of which is contained in section 15 of the Act: “This Act

South Suburban Safeway Lines, Inc. v. City of Chicago

285 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 1968

S.H.A.Ch. 111%, § 56, ff 7, leaves no doubt on this point: “No certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be construed as granting a monopoly or an exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise.” … This court assumes, for the purposes of argument, that the Constitution qualifies as a “statute” under the A.P.A.

Nehan v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 957 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

To establish a disability discrimination claim, Nehan must show that; (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job either with or without reasonable accommodation … As discussed above, Nehan has failed to establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability, so Tootsie Roll had no duty to accommodate his back problems.

Geisberger v. Willuhn

72 Ill. App. 3d 435 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 1, 1979

The cases cited by the plaintiff herein are clearly distinguishable from the majority opinion quoted above. Costa v. Regents of University of California (Cal. … Finally, in a related context, the name and the identity of a client does not generally qualify as confidential information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. (Leindecker v.

First Assist, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

371 Ill. App. 3d 488 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 31, 2007

He opined that there are jobs for which the claimant is qualified which pay more than she is currently making. … However, the claimant’s testimony clearly establishes that all nurses do not perform the same functions, and Hammond’s testimony establishes that all nurses are not paid the same.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Department of Revenue

313 Ill. App. 3d 469 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 17, 2000

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the circuit court and affirm the Department’s determination that the District’s property did not qualify for an exemption from taxation. … This is a mixed question of law and fact; thus, this court may only overturn the Department’s decision if it is clearly erroneous. See City of Belvidere v.

Brown v. Kirk

33 Ill. App. 3d 477 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 1975

They should not be extended by implications beyond the office or offices expressed or to persons not clearly within their meaning. In other words, they should be construed in favor of eligibility. … A tenant is well qualified to attest to the legitimate needs of low-income tenants, the intended primary beneficiaries of this governmental program.

AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security

198 Ill. 2d 380 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2001

rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” … Thus, a driver’s “business” was not established “independently” of AFM.

Mosely v. City of Chicago

252 F.R.D. 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2008

by some Circuit Courts of Appeals, but rejected by the Seventh Circuit) and by the Illinois qualified journalist’s privilege. … Thus, no category of information or class of witness is immune from subpoena. Otherwise we would have a per se rule rather than a discretionary choice.

Moennich v. City of Chicago

147 Ill. App. 553 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 22, 1909

They each examined her a few days prior to the trial, for the sole purpose of qualifying themselves to testify as medical experts. … is clearly traceable to the traumatic injury to the knee suffered as a result of her fall through the defective sidewalk.

Order Applies to Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC

921 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2013

The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that NoerrPennington does not apply to petitioning activity that, although “ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing … But other assurances, as alleged, do not include this qualifier. (Id. ¶¶ 64-66.)

21 Kristin Condominium Ass'n v. Pioneer Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC

2020 IL App (1st) 191868 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2020

“[A] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” Marshall, 222 Ill. 2d at 429. … ¶ 15 For the remaining element of the cause of action, Pioneer argues that its statements cannot qualify as misrepresentations, because it only expressed its opinion about the condition of the property.

Home Star Bank and Financial Services, etc. v. Emergency Care and Health Organization, Ltd.

6 N.E.3d 128 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2014

The term is clearly capable of being understood by reasonable persons in more than one way. … Here, those considerations clearly support a broad, flexible reading of the word “fee.”

People v. West

2019 IL App (1st) 162400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 2020

App. 3d 523, 526-29 (1980), adopted from New York and federal cases a test for whether the “ ‘carr[ying of] another from one place to another’ ” qualified for a separate charge of kidnapping. … The appellate court in Dread directed the parties to file the exhibit and stated that “[o]ur personal inspection clearly establishes the fact that the barrel is less than 18 inches in length.” 27 Ill.