Case law

Burt Dickens & Co. v. Bodi

144 Ill. App. 3d 875 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 6, 1986

Clearly, the success of the business ultimately depends on the wealth of the list compiled. However, a customer list is compiled only gradually and with time. … This factor alone may place a newcomer at a great disadvantage with his more established competitor when soliciting accounts.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Short

125 Ill. App. 2d 97 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 22, 1970

However, it is well-established that when it is not practicable to place before the jury all the primary facts in such a way as to enable the jury to form an intelligent conclusion, witnesses who have had means of personal … Clearly these affidavits are admissible to impeach Loren’s testimony and the question of Loren’s credibility is raised. Under these circumstances summary judgment is inappropriate. Cross v.

People v. Melgoza

231 Ill. App. 3d 510 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 19, 1992

The statements clearly implicated defendant in the conspiracy. … Clearly the nonhearsay evidence, Victor’s statements and the conduct of both defendant and Victor established that defendant was Victor’s “guy,” “his connect.”

Hopfinger v. City of Nashville, Illinois

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 2019

Second, Fletcher asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id. at p. 6) because the law is not clearly established that the termination of an employee under the facts asserted constitutes a deprivation of the right … Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim (Id. at ¶ 4).

Maddux v. Blagojevich

233 Ill. 2d 508 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2009

Instead, it resolved the case by construing the Act as not barring a “person over the age of 75[,] and otherwise qualified to serve as a judge from running in a judicial election.” Anagnost, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 544 . … As already pointed out, section 11 of the judicial article establishes only three criteria for eligibility to be a judge.

Rudolph v. State

53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 58 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Oct 4, 2000

The individual judges are clearly unnecessary as parties herein; and Claimant has given no cogent reason for their remaining as Respondents. … However, the circuit court held it lacked jurisdiction over the Chief Judge as a State officer, due to sovereign immunity.

The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUND. v. Block Drug Co.

133 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Jul 12, 1955

It is, therefore, plain that the burden of establishing the invalidity of the plaintiff’s patent is upon the defendant. … All Lichtenstein does is to confirm the relationship between the ammonia content in the saliva and immunity from dental caries.

Brenczewski v. Forest Preserve District of Will County

2023 IL App (3d) 230061-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 20, 2023

(745 ILCS 10/2-109, 2-201 (West 2020)), Brenczewski contends that it did not offer sufficient evidence to establish immunity. … Without any evidence in the trial record to satisfy the District’s burden of proving that it qualified for absolute tort immunity, the trial court erred in finding that the District was immunized under section

Thomas v. Chrysler Financial, LLC

278 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 2003

As to the first of those, there is indeed a genuine issue as to whether Thomas was qualified for the Credit Analyst position. … But on that score Thomas cites only allegations in a complaint in another lawsuit against Chrysler — -clearly not evidence that may be considered under Rule 56(e).

People v. Munson

206 Ill. 2d 104 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2002

The court also commented at length on the question of whether Tatelli could be qualified as an expert witness. … Such decisions are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 432 (1999).

Owens v. Illinois Department of Human Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Second, if there was a constitutional violation, the court must determine whether the violated right was “clearly established.” Id. Defendants here address only the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Doe v. School District U-46

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2021

Here, Defendants’ response to the December 17 report of harassment was not clearly unreasonable. … Turning first to the question of immunity, Defendants argue that Sections 2-103 and 2-205 of the Tort Immunity Act apply.

Carroll v. City of Oak Forest

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 18, 2020

Both the TIA’s immunity provisions and its statute of limitations provision are affirmative defenses, so the burden is on the defendants to establish that that the TIA bars liability. Van Meter v. … Thus, the Court finds Section 2-201 immunity does not clearly apply here, and because Section 2-201 immunity does not apply, neither does Section 2-109 immunity.

In Re Aimster Copyright Litigation

252 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2002

The second *658 definition further provides that it includes any entity that qualifies under the first definition. Id. … In any event, Aimster certainly qualifies under the first version (and, by extension, the second).

Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chi. Field Office

346 F. Supp. 3d 1174 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018

The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is satisfied. Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc. , 570 F.3d 907 , 913 (7th Cir. 2009). … Consequently, any such officer would not be protected by qualified immunity.")

Conklin Construction Co. v. Walsh

131 Ill. App. 609 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 5, 1907

It failed to inform the jury in plain, ordinary, understandable terms as to the qualifying duty of plaintiff on the occasion in question, in the hazardous position in which he was placed. … He was clearly within the rule. In the case at bar, Walsh was up the tree of his own volition and without any particular instruction.

Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings

2017 IL 117720 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2017

¶5 The record before us, when viewed according to the foregoing principles, establishes the following. … The appellate court held that this claim was barred by section 2-107 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-107 (West 2012)), which immunizes local public

The People v. Riedel

371 Ill. 561 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1939

It clearly appears from the evidence that plaintiffs in error were trying to promote a distilling company organized under the laws of Delaware; that they got in touch with the complaining witness; that he was willing to invest … It may be that the plaintiffs in error are guilty of violating some other criminal provisions of the statute but under the record in this case there is not sufficient proof to establish the crime of obtaining money by means

Stearns v. Reidy

135 Ill. 119 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1890

the evidence, and of the other special findings made by the jury, and of the general verdict, it is manifest there is no real conflict, but that the various special findings of fact, when taken and considered together, qualify … The special findings indicate clearly the theory of fact upon which the verdict was based, and that theory is in substantial conformity with the case stated in the declaration.

Hession v. Department of Public Aid

163 Ill. App. 3d 553 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1987

He claimed that he qualified for this assistance because he was “eligible for basic maintenance under [AABD] [because he was disabled], *** failfed] to qualify thereunder on the basis of need, *** [but] ha[d] insufficient … A State may not ‘require the use of income or resources which would bring the individual’s income below the amount established as the test of eligibility under the State plan.