Case law

Lacy v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc.

965 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1997

B. 1992 Failure-To-Promote Claims Plaintiff claims that he was denied promotions in 1992 in favor of less-qualified white applicants and less-qualified women in violation of Title VII. … The Supreme Court has clearly stated that “[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case ... is not onerous.” Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v.

Haag v. Cook County Adult Probation Department

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 2018

These allegations, on their own, do not establish that Haag was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. … In fact, it would be more surprising if litigants could use § 1981 as an end run around the “well-established common- law” of state sovereign immunity. Will, 491 U.S. at 58 (1989). 5.

People v. Thornton

250 N.E.3d 991 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 12, 2024

The State provided him with use immunity for his testimony at trial. … At the time, Davis did not qualify his statement by claiming he did not remember what happened, that he was using drugs, or that he was asleep.

W. F. Smith & Co. v. Lowenstein

4 Ill. App. 3d 153 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 17, 1972

We do not think any of this testimony establishes either unequivocal or unconditional agreement by the defendants. … On the contrary, we think that the testimony of the defendants, as set out earlier, clearly establishes that not only was there no biding agreement, but that the defendants expressly made the existence of any binding agreement

Pope v. Alberto-Culver Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 27, 1998

It is well established that a product or service that is within the realm of general skills and knowledge in the industry cannot be a trade secret. Web Communications Group, Inc. v. Gateway 2000, Inc. , 889 F. … Defendant company clearly had the knowledge, personnel and resources to identify the "niche market" referred to by plaintiff.

Stone v. Industrial Commission

286 Ill. App. 3d 174 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 10, 1997

Boyd found it difficult to establish a rapport with claimant as "[he] presented] himself in a very unresponsive manner” with a "very flat affect and responded] to all questions with a minimum of information.” … Claimant expressed no interest in several positions for which he was qualified and which conformed to his doctor’s restrictions.

Northern Trust Co. v. County of Lake

Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 4, 2004

In interpreting a statute, it is never proper for a court to depart from the plain language by reading into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions that conflict with the clearly expressed legislative intent. … In this case, the parties agree that the zoning officer was charged with determining whether the facility qualifies as a permitted accessory use under Lake County's zoning scheme.

Gary B. v. Cronin

542 F. Supp. 102 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 1982

It only excludes psychotherapy rendered by a non-qualified person.” Defendants’ Memo at 23. … In fact, Special Education Rule 1.01c defines counseling services as “services provided by qualified personnel such as: social workers, psychologists, guidance counselors, or other qualified personnel.”

In Re Marriage of Papeck

95 Ill. App. 3d 624 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 16, 1981

It is clearly established that Rlinois circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear all justiciable issues. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §9; People v. … The court discussed several distinctions between public and private pension funds which justify the legislature's immunization of public pension funds from garnishment and attachment.

O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

2020 IL App (5th) 190448 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 31, 2020

On June 5, 2020, this court entered an order requiring that the defendant file a response to the petition for rehearing and establishing a deadline for the plaintiff’s reply. … 2018). 6 Department of Commerce, which clearly qualifies as a “regulatory body.”

People v. Jones

2013 IL App (1st) 113263 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 24, 2014

Defendant has the burden of establishing both elements of the cause-and-prejudice test in order to prevail. … Id. ¶ 20 We find that Bounds is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar for several reasons.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Abc-Naco

389 Ill. App. 3d 691 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 2009

The derailment site itself was clearly random; a train could derail at any location along the rail system of this country. … NACO clearly had the opportunity to investigate and inspect the site and the physical evidence.

Smith-Silk v. Prenzler

2013 IL App (5th) 120546 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 2013

Clair County defendants filed a motion to dismiss in which they argued they were immune from prosecution pursuant to section 2-203 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) … custody exchange fund fee as established by the county ordinance.

People v. Griham

Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2010

A double enhancement is not improper if the legislature clearly expresses an intent to allow it. People v. Owens, 377 Ill. App. 3d 302, 304, 878 N.E.2d 1189, 1191-92 (2007). … Because the State chose to enhance the classification of defendant's offense from a Class 3 felony to a Class 2 felony with his 1996 conviction under the Controlled Substances Act, it could not use that same conviction to qualify

People Ex Rel. Kreda v. Fitzgerald

33 Ill. App. 3d 209 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 24, 1975

App.2d 569 , 266 N.E.2d 508 ) and because the proposed plans here, as testified to by plaintiff’s witness Pécora, did not qualify under the definition of auto laundry as a unit capable of washing more than two automobiles … It is established that on appeal the party claiming error has the burden of establishing any irregularities, and one who seeks to reverse a decree carries the burden of showing that it is erroneous.”

Manasse v. Holleb

143 Ill. App. 3d 438 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 6, 1986

These legacies clearly constitute a benefit obtained by operation of the will. See In re Estate of Johnson (1976), 39 Ill. App. 3d 246, 253 , 350 N.E.2d 310 . … The doctrine of election was clearly designed to address such inconsistent positions as this, and to preempt such activity.

In Re Marriage of Burke

185 Ill. App. 3d 253 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1989

Thus, while the 1982 statute allowed a parental veto over joint custody immune to judicial discretion, the 1986 statute recognizes that the trial court may impose joint custody in appropriate cases. … broad discretion to impose joint custody in the best interests of the child even over the objections of the parties, the summary termination of joint custody upon the petition of parties who agree to such a termination is clearly

Benjamin v. Cablevision Programming Investments

132 Ill. App. 3d 943 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 17, 1985

The notice stated that plaintiff’s right to void the sale was premised on defendants’ failure to register the security pursuant to section 5 of the Illinois Act and their failure to qualify for any exemption therefrom, particularly … It is, however, clearly established in Illinois that in construing a statute, the language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (City of East Peoria v.

Swaw v. Klompien

168 Ill. App. 3d 705 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 29, 1988

Where the parties offer conflicting medical testimony regarding the applicable standard of care and defendant’s breach of that standard, the jury is uniquely qualified to resolve the conflict, and a judgment n.o.v. is not … Clearly, the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to support the verdict. Defendant also contends that the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel during trial and closing argument resulted in prejudice and error.

O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

2020 IL App (5th) 190448 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 31, 2020

On June 5, 2020, this court entered an order requiring that the defendant file a response to the petition for rehearing and establishing a deadline for the plaintiff’s reply. … NIST is a division of the United States Department of Commerce, which clearly qualifies as a “regulatory body.”