Case law

Svenson v. Miller Builders, Inc.

74 Ill. App. 3d 75 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1979

NIELSEN: Miller Builders’ concept or philosophy of construction, if you like that better, is that in selecting a qualified subcontractor we assume he knows how to do his job and has performed it satisfactorily in the past … In the instant case the condition of the backfill and Miller’s responsibility for that condition were clearly at issue.

In re Brandon K.

2017 IL App (2d) 170075 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 20, 2017

A determination of unfitness is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the determination is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented … He concludes that the State failed to meet this standard because “one criminal conviction is not sufficient to establish unfitness based on depravity” and the State did not show that his murder conviction was

Roberts Park Fire Protection District v. Village of Bridgeview

20 Ill. App. 3d 282 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 6, 1974

That part of the Village which is located within the District has some residential uses and also some industrial and mercantile establishments. … This court does not wish to be placed in the position of approving a disconnection with resulting substantial loss of tax revenue to the District where the evidence shows so clearly that such action would impair the present

Anderson v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.

961 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 1997

It is well established that the proper defendant to a § 1132(a)(1)(B) suit is the plan. Jass v. … It must be noted that § 1161(a), which establishes a qualified beneficiary’s right to continuation coverage, also does not use any “notice” language.

People v. Lindsay

412 Ill. 472 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1952

Before an individual can be assigned as a criminal court judge he must be a duly qualified judge of the circuit court. … Unless it clearly appears that the jury has abused its power, it is not the province of a reviewing court to disturb its determination.

Rzesutko v. Hooper

322 Ill. 519 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1926

While the witness spoke of a building line no such line appears on the plat, and his testimony, taken all together, clearly shows that he intended to speak of the street or front line of the lot. … It follows that appellees sufficiently established their exclusive possession of the premises.

Peoria Housing Authority v. Sanders

2 Ill. App. 3d 610 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 8, 1971

Defendant's income was sufficiently low that she qualified under the Housing Authority's program and an apartment was rented to her. … The rent was established by the Authority on the basis of defendant's income and expenses.

Eisendrath v. Knauer

64 Ill. 396 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

The chief circumstances established by what we conceive to be the clear weight and preponderance of the evidence are, that about the 3d of October, 1871, the date of the check in question, the defendants sold to Carney a … It was incumbent upon them to show a qualified right or interest in the thing, a jus in re, or some fixed right attached to it, either equitable or legal. This principle is recognized in the case of Chickering v.

Thillens, Inc. v. Hodge

2 Ill. 2d 45 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1954

Section 10 specifies certain qualifying conditions precedent to the issuance of a license and provides that no application shall be denied by the Auditor without notice and hearing and a right of review in accordance with … Also, the party attacking the validity of a statute has the burden of proving that it is clearly arbitrary and has no foundation in the police power for its existence. (Midland Electric Coal Corp. v.

Dykhouse v. Mugge

735 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 1990

Clearly the allegations contained in Count I do not implicate any of the rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment. … In light of this statute and the explication of the doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Stambaugh v. International Harvester Co.

102 Ill. 2d 250 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1984

Clair County, yet enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in that county. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the Illinois venue statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 — 101). … Harvester maintains offices in Cook County for convenience, but its products are clearly designed for use in agricultural areas such as St. Clair County.

Health Cost Controls v. Skinner

845 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 20, 1994

(“HMO Illinois”) has been the provider of “managed care services” for some participants under an employee welfare benefit plan established by Mobil Oil Corporation (“Mobil”) — in this instance such services were provided … But because HCC’s claimed “fiduciary” status is used as the springboard for its asserted action under Section 1132(a)(3), and because HCC’s ability to bring this lawsuit under that provision is so clearly nonexistent, this

Doe v. Board of Education of The City of Chicago A Municipal Corporation

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2024

In the alternative, the Board defendants assert that they are entitled to immunity under the Tort Immunity Act as "employee[s] of a local public entity," qualifying them for immunity as "public employee[s]." 745 ILCS 10 … Defendants contend that they qualify for immunity under section 2-201 as they were engaging in the exercise of discretion when responding to Doe's retaliation claim; they seek immunity under section 2-205 because Doe contends

Musinski v. Staudacher

928 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 1996

“[A] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs cause of action.” … Accordingly, this suit, though it purports to raise only state law claims, is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the clearly manifested intent of Congress.

Levin v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

470 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 2007

Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 955-956 (7th Cir.2000), in the Seventh Circuit it is clearly established that individuals have a “ ‘substantial’ right in the confidentiality of medical information that can only be overcome by a sufficiently … The constitutional right to the confidentiality of medical records and communications is a qualified right. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir.1995).

Muhammad

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2026

Given that the FAC does not establish every element of a qualified immunity defense, the Court declines to dismiss Muhammad’s equal protection claim on that ground. … See id. at 577 (collecting cases showing that “[i]f the question turns on the facts, the issue of qualified immunity is best left for a later day”).

Diadenko v. Folino

890 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2012

Condie,” stating that she was not qualified to be a case manager and questioning the number of hours she worked. … Because we have concluded that plaintiffs' claims fail on their merits, it is unnecessary to reach Folino's qualified-immunity defense. .

Avitia v. City Of Chicago

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

The officers’ qualified immunity argument does not compel a contrary conclusion. First and foremost, qualified immunity is disfavored as a reason for dismissal at the pleadings stage. See Jacobs v. … Such an argument is not only speculative, but it also misstates the qualified immunity inquiry on a motion to dismiss.

Hawthorne Race Course, Inc. v. Illinois Racing Board

366 Ill. App. 3d 435 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 19, 2006

NJC argues that because it has a license to collect bets, it qualifies as a “wagering facility.” … The statutory formula again established an amount of recapture for Sportsman’s Park.

Sweeney v. City of Decatur

2017 IL App (4th) 160492 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 2, 2017

a clearly mandated public policy in the context of a private employer. … Accordingly, we find plaintiff has failed to show the facts in his amended complaint establish a clearly mandated public policy protecting his speech at the February 2016 meeting.