Case law

Illinois Development Finance Authority v. Bean

138 Ill. App. 3d 401 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 12, 1985

The principles governing the granting or denying of a motion for summary judgment are well established. … The financing of public utility projects clearly would not serve the Act’s stated purpose of providing employment in Illinois.

Martinez v. The Cook County Sheriff's Office

89 N.E.3d 995 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 6, 2017

that argument, defendants assert that (1) plaintiff did not state a claim for the assessment of a penalty against defendants under section 35 of the Withholding Act, since plaintiff did not (and could not) establish … The purpose of the section 35 statutory penalty is clearly to punish those who violate the Withholding Act and to deter future violations—not to compensate the recipient of support for the payments that he

Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Lozada v. Rivera

324 Ill. App. 3d 476 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 31, 2001

No. 98 — 604, p. 24 (1984) (emphasis added). *** Congress clearly intended veterans’ disability benefits to be used, in part, for the support of veterans’ dependents.” Rose, 481 U.S. at 630-31 , 95 L. … Thus, while denying section 5301(a) preemptive effect would not undermine Congress’s purpose in establishing the veterans’ benefits program, construing section 407(a) to make SSI benefits subject to a child support order

Easter

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2026

Officers clearly knew the home identified in the warrant. Nothing in the Complaint suggests that the warrant was invalid. … Id. at 512 (“If a prosecutor plants evidence before someone is arrested, he enjoys only qualified immunity….

People v. Botruff

212 Ill. 2d 166 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2004

In assessing these arguments, we must be ever mindful of the well-established principles that: (1) all statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality (People v. … Maness, 191 Ill. 2d 478, 483 (2000)); and (2) the party challenging a statute bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional infirmity (People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill. 2d 104, 111 (1995)).

Snedden v. Lavenka

92 Ill. App. 3d 979 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 27, 1981

After qualifying Alroth, defense counsel intended to ask him whether he could determine the speed of Snedden’s Honda relative to that of Lavenka’s Cadillac. … For a verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, it must be clearly and palpably against the weight of the evidence or an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent. (Rankin v. Hojka (1976), 42 Ill.

Brand v. Jeffreys

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2023

qualified immunity, as they were acting in the course of their employment, limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), barred by Heck v. … The Court finds that these defendants have established excusable neglect, prompt corrective action, and a meritorious defense to the Amended Complaint.

Egidi v. Town of Libertyville

251 Ill. App. 3d 224 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 1993

We further concluded that the asserted easements would give the Township the level of control envisioned by the Act as necessary to qualify a less than fee interest as open land. … A clearly defined servient estate distinguishes Beloit from the instant case.

Brown v. Sanchez

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2018

Lastly, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 ‘for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional

Snelson v. Kamm

319 Ill. App. 3d 116 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 28, 2001

Even assuming McCallum qualified as a medical expert, her vague assertions that failure to follow steps in the nursing process “increases the likelihood” of an unfavorable outcome was insufficient to establish proximate causation … By indiscriminately modifying that instruction, the Smith court acted as a de facto IPI committee, which it clearly should not have done.

Pratt-Holdampf v. Trinity Medical Center

338 Ill. App. 3d 1079 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 12, 2003

In Illinois, it is well established that only persons duly admitted to practice law in this state may appear on behalf of other persons. Leonard v. Walsh, 73 Ill. … App. 3d 543 , 481 N.E.2d 25 (1985), establishes an express exception to the nullity rule.

State of Illinois ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. National Business Furniture, LLC

2016 IL App (1st) 150526 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 2016

contends on appeal that the circuit court erroneously applied the “government knowledge defense” to conclude that the mere fact of the IDOR audit negated defendant’s scienter as a matter of law and “permanently immunized … According to relator, even if the evidence established that the State knew that defendant did not collect and remit use tax on shipping charges as a result of the audit, it did not establish that the State knew

Levit v. Spatz (In Re Spatz)

222 B.R. 157 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 1998

The bankruptcy court clearly agreed with this, but found her real estate valuation background lacking. … Therefore, we will not reverse the court’s determination as clearly erroneous.

People v. Beck

2017 IL App (4th) 160654 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2018

Id. ¶ 76 Berkemer involves circumstances where the defendant was “formally” arrested and questioned after having clearly been taken into custody by police. … Cir. 1923), (2) Wetstein was not qualified to offer expert opinion testimony on retrograde extrapolation, and (3) the State failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of retrograde

Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 26, 2008

Clearly, not-for-profit status alone does not confer an - 12 - exemption under section 15-65(a). … It seems to us that confining the gift to the establishment of the hospital would make the gift dubious.

Barrett v. Illinois Department of Corrections

958 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 26, 2013

Regarding the Ethics Act claim, IDOC argued that the claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. (# 5) Plaintiff conceded as much. (# 9). … [ejmployees seeking relief under the entitlement theory must therefore establish that the employer’s violation caused them harm.” Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501, 507-08 (6th Cir.2006), citing Ragsdale.

In Re Insull Utility Investments, Inc.

6 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 1933

Here we have another illustration of fraud which clearly establishes collusion. The instant ease, however, may readily be distinguished from the above illustrations. … than one who; though entitled to the confidence of the court, is not equally qualified to render the service for which the technical experience of the engineer qualifies him.

Taake v. WHGK, INC.

228 Ill. App. 3d 692 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 1992

In the instant case, as in Voyles, sufficient foundation was established to qualify Dawson as an expert on the job duties and responsibilities of an on-site observer. … Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows that Belleville Area College had no input into the construction of the welding shop or the placement of the air purifiers.

Sorenson v. Fio Rito

90 Ill. App. 3d 368 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 6, 1980

The defendant failed to establish that this conclusion was unreasonable. We therefore conclude that the damages assessed were proper. … We believe the record clearly contains evidence as to the reasonableness of the efforts of the plaintiff. Mr.

Koefoot v. American College of Surgeons

610 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1985

It has been the consistent position of the ACS that a physician is not fully qualified to assume responsibility for the postoperative management of a surgical patient unless he is as well qualified as the operating surgeon … Koefoot’s deposition testimony does not clearly establish, as defendants contend, that the one referring physician who reduced the number of referrals to Dr. Koefoot, Dr.