Case law

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).

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.

Bullis v. DuPage Trust Co.

72 Ill. App. 3d 927 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 14, 1979

Subparagraph 4.1 clearly states that the trustee is to turn over the income generated by Trust B to Maurice Otto Bullís, Mrs. … Bullís’ husband, “commencing at my death and during the life of my husband,” thereby clearly making Maurice Otto Bullís a life beneficiary.

In Re Eckberg

192 Ill. 2d 70 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2000

any established treatment plan; 4. … ANALYSIS The principles governing our review of the reports and recommendations of both the Hearing Board and the Review Board are clearly established.

People v. Harvey

9 Ill. App. 3d 944 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 1973

In view of defendant’s mother’s testimony as to the defendant’s exact date of birth in the instant case, these two cases are clearly distinguishable. … His argument, in effect, is that the defendant, by virtue of his age, good background, etc., could or did qualify for probation.

Jones v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

996 N.E.2d 1093 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 30, 2013

Under the deferential review standard, the Board’s final decision must be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous. ¶ 27 The Board has the power to both establish and enforce standards that protect the Chicago … Clearly, those charges did not arise out of her performance of her teaching assignments.

Matuszak v. Cerniak

Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 25, 2004

So he might have a problem with his immune system. *** Q. … ANALYSIS Generally, expert testimony is admissible if the proffered expert is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding

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).

De v. City of Chicago

912 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

De alleges that the City promoted “a less-qualified non-Asian individual in lieu of’ himself in 2007, and routinely “promoted and retained” less-qualified non-Asian (and, more specifically, non-Indian) employees in such a … Human Rights Comm’n, 192 Ill.App.3d 263 , 139 Ill.Dec. 310 , 548 N.E.2d 695, 701 (1st Dist.1989) (“[Plaintiff], as an Asian Indian, is clearly a member of a group protected from discrimination on the basis of national origin

Brady

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2026

Here, Brady has not produced the requisite medical expert opinion evidence to establish a medical negligence claim. … Koropchak, 567 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2009) ([w]here an alleged act of misconduct arose out of the State employee's breach of a duty that is imposed on him solely by virtue of his State Employment, sovereign immunity will

Harris v. Proviso Area for Exceptional Children

581 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2008

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that she “(1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA[;] (2) is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without … In order to show that she is a qualified individual under the ADA, Plaintiff must first establish that she “ ‘satisfies the prerequisites for the position, such as possessing the appropriate educational background, employment

Pyle v. State

29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 133 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Nov 19, 1973

In the case at bar, it is not necessary for us to conclude that the respondent was in no degree negligent, since we find that the facts in this case clearly establishes claimant’s own negligence as the main contributory cause … Yet her own testimony clearly establishes the fact that she was negligent on this particular occasion. We need not comment on whether or not Milo Erwin was also negligent, as claimant contends.

Same Condition, LLC v. Codal, Inc.

453 Ill. Dec. 409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 21, 2021

The court’s order clearly intended to regulate the content of Same Condition and Kumar’s speech, namely any online speech involving Codal. … “Ordinarily, the State’s constitutionally permissible interests are adequately served by criminal penalties imposed after freedom to speak has been so grossly abused that its immunity is 3

Stanila v. Joe

2020 IL App (1st) 191890 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 2020

Therefore, defendant argues that “the motion for reconsideration, which was filed on August 16, 2019, was clearly timely filed and preserved [d]efendant’s right to appeal.” … CONCLUSION ¶ 29 In sum, the record before us does not establish this court’s jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal and we must, therefore, dismiss it. ¶ 30 Appeal dismissed.

People v. Davis

452 Ill. Dec. 487 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 21, 2021

In addition, where “reasonable cause exists to believe that inculpatory conversations concerning a qualified offense will occur with a specified individual or individuals within a designated period of … ¶ 40 Gervasi clearly stated that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply because the officers were actual participants in the conversations with the defendants. 89 Ill. 2d at 530.

People v. Craig

334 Ill. App. 3d 426 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 2002

Orange, 121 Ill. 2d 364 (1988), our supreme court held that section 115 — 10.1 is constitutional: “[T]he statute [i]s clearly within the legislature’s authority. (See People v. … In Shockey, when the witness (the defendant’s brother) invoked his fifth amendment rights, the State granted him immunity. The appellate court held: “The defendant claims the immunity order was not proper.

Lamer v. Holder

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 2020

objective reasonableness standard, Plaintiff could not be successful in his claims as a whole because Defendant McCoy asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which generally “protects government agents … from liability when their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Brown v. City of Aurora

942 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1996

First, Brown must establish a prima facie case. … The fourth and final element of Brown’s prima facie ease has been established. 2.

Maloney v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson (In Re Nichols)

88 B.R. 871 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 15, 1988

This Code section clearly suggests that mortgage notes are excluded from Code coverage. … The assignee in Kennedy Mortgage had established its interest in the five notes at issue by taking possession of them.

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