Case law

In Re JRY

157 Ill. App. 3d 396 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 29, 1987

In a case such as this one, such a result is clearly against the best interests of the minor. … The criminal record set forth in the presentence report clearly establishes an affinity toward violations of the law, many of which resulted in incarceration. Some of the minor offenses related to alcohol.

United Stationers Supply Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 2008

Zurich responds that United Stationers did not establish that it qualified as an additional insured under the CGL policy. Zurich argues that there was no written contract requiring D.C. … The certificate of insurance clearly provided that it was not part of the policy and that the insured had to look to the policy to ascertain the extent of coverage.” Kraemer, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 811.

Village of Rosemont v. Jaffe (In Re Emerald Casino, Inc.)

334 B.R. 378 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 7, 2005

Moreover, Rosemont has not established that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in declining to enjoin the Disciplinary Proceedings. … Therefore, the Court need not address the issue of whether the State of Illinois' sovereign immunity bars the Court from exercising jurisdiction over Rosemont's claims, or whether the in rem exception to sovereign immunity

American Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 18, 2009

App. 3d at 736, 745 N.E.2d at 653 (“[T]he decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident”). … XIV, §1)9 and the Constitution of the State of 9 The fourteenth amendment states in pertinent part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

Reed v. Country Place Apartments Moweaqua I, L.P.

2016 IL App (5th) 150170 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 13, 2016

¶ 14 We turn, therefore, to the issue of immunity under the Act. … common law, the Murphy-Hylton court concluded that the Act must be interpreted narrowly, as evidenced by the general rule of law that when the General Assembly intends to abrogate the common law, that intent must be clearly

Acevedo v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board

432 Ill. Dec. 440 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 7, 2019

Acevedo also argued that the Tort Immunity Act did not bar his current claims because the void decision of the Board could be attacked at any time, his claims did not sound in tort, and the Tort Immunity Act … The complaint should be dismissed only if it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Id. at 349.

Department of Corrections Ex Rel. People v. Adams

278 Ill. App. 3d 803 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1996

The party challenging the statute bears the burden of "clearly establishing that the statute is unconstitutional.” Rehg, 152 Ill. 2d at 512 , 605 N.E.2d at 529 . A. … Defendant also seems to argue that the statute does not clearly inform him what conduct is unlawful. However, as we earlier held, section 3 — 7 — 6 is not a penal or criminal statute.

Blair v. Travelers Insurance

30 Ill. App. 2d 191 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 24, 1961

There was also the testimony of a qualified psychiatrist who answered a hypothetical question based on the uncontroverted facts of Adams’ mental deterioration. … It is our opinion that the testimony of Adams’ insanity clearly preponderated over the presumption of sanity which operated in favor of the parents.

Central Stock & Grain Exchange v. Pine Tree Lumber Co.

140 Ill. App. 471 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 6, 1908

It considered itself immune from final process. … Section 10 is clearly a limitation upon the time given to corporations by the statute to settle up their affairs, and while it has been decided that a dissolved corporation may prosecute an appeal or sue out a writ of error

Henson v. Macon County Jail

2025 IL App (5th) 230473-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2025

The defendant argued that the applicable statute of limitations for tort claims against a government entity was one year, pursuant to the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act … A small claims complaint is to be liberally construed; the complaint is sufficient where it clearly notifies the defendant of the nature of the claim. Porter v. Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District, 237 Ill.

Keshner v. Keshner

304 Ill. App. 640 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 7, 1940

It is clearly established that Julia Keshner acted for her mother in all the transactions concerning the matter under inquiry. From the testimony of respondent Julia Keshner, it appears that Edward P. … The testimony of Julia Keshner corroborated by Fannie Keshner and Joseph Keshner clearly establishes an intent on the part of the deceased to make a gift to his wife of the property in question.

Johnson v. The Village of Palatine

2024 IL App (1st) 232238-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 9, 2024

As to discretionary immunity, the court found the Village was entitled to immunity as to some of Johnson’s allegations regarding the sidewalk replacement program, but it was not immune from all such allegations. … Thus, Johnson was clearly permitted to ride his bicycle on the subject sidewalk.

People v. Rosalez

194 N.E.3d 929 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 15, 2021

The State later gave Gonzalez use immunity, and he testified for the State. ¶ 30 On redirect examination, the State returned to the issue of Vilayhong’s window, establishing that Gonzalez had never told … It explained: “The testimony of Molstad’s codefendants clearly qualifies as newly discovered evidence.

Thigpen v. United States (In re Thigpen)

590 B.R. 810 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2018

Congress rather clearly indicated that it wanted a provider's stream of services to be considered one transaction for purposes of any claim the government would have against the provider." … Congress rather clearly indicated that it wanted a provider's stream of services to be considered one transaction ....")

Department of Natural Resources v. Waide

992 N.E.2d 187 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 17, 2013

Inc., 338 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir. 2003). ¶ 31 Although the law disfavors estoppel against governmental entities, “the reluctance to apply equitable principles against the State does not amount to absolute immunity … Here, the Department was an active participant to the execution and receipt of the 1960 deed clearly excepting one-fourth mineral interests to the defendants.

Perez v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.

223 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2016

The federal officer removal statute also ensures that the validity of any official immunity defense is tried in federal court. Id. (citing Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610, 617 (7th Cir. 2011)). … Second, Crane Co. has established that it acted under a federal officer.

Independent Coin Payphone Ass'n v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 744 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 12, 1994

Because the plaintiffs clearly seek to enjoin the application of the Franchise Ordinance, the only question is whether the legislation constitutes a tax. … Indeed, such a request is ironic, given the fact that plaintiffs' allegations clearly depict the Franchise Ordinance as a tax.

Illinois Landscape Contractors Ass'n v. Department of Labor

372 Ill. App. 3d 912 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2007

feels that they’re more qualified to say what a laborer does.” … This is a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, the clearly-erroneous standard of review apphes.

People v. Barajas

322 Ill. App. 3d 541 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 15, 2001

Officer Souchet’s testimony established that on August 18, 1997, at approximately 11 p.m., he made a traffic stop at 2317 North Milwaukee. … organizational structure of the [gang] was relevant to the State’s case in order to demonstrate defendant’s possible motive for shooting [the victim], facts about gang rivalries, presentment, graffiti, tattoos, and drug sales clearly

Lee v. Calfa

174 Ill. App. 3d 101 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 24, 1988

In an action against an insurance agent for damages sustained as a result of the agent’s alleged failure to obtain proper insurance coverage, expert testimony was unnecessary to establish a standard of care. … The trial court has the discretion to determine which instruction shall be given, and the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on review unless it has been clearly abused. (Clarkson v.