Case law

Collins v. Roseland Community Hospital

219 Ill. App. 3d 766 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 17, 1991

Specifically, plaintiff maintains that the evidence adduced at trial established that Dr. … Both parties presented the testimony of qualified expert witnesses.

Dings v. Dings

123 Ill. App. 318 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1905

It is a well-established rule that the chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses is better qualified than is an appellate tribunal to judge of the weight to be given to their testimony; and where the evidence of the witnesses … is conflicting the decree will not be disturbed by this court on a question of fact, unless it appears to us that the findings of fact are clearly and palpably wrong.

Ienco v. City of Chicago

148 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 2001

against the City of Chicago are redundant to those against the police officers in their official capacity. 5 Section 1983 provides that any person who, under color of law, causes the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities … It does not qualify as a favorable termination of his criminal proceedings, and Ienco’s claim therefore fails the second prong of the state law cause of action. 2.

The People v. O'Connell

386 Ill. 606 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1944

Other provisions were for the establishment of a special fund for the payment of compensation in the event of default or insolvency of the applicant. … Clearly that rule has no application to the securities furnished to guarantee payment of compensation liabilities arising subsequent to the date of the application.

Highland Park Hospital v. Department of Revenue

155 Ill. App. 3d 272 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 6, 1987

Our supreme court established the following principles which constituted the frame of reference to determine whether or not a use was in fact exclusively for charitable purposes: (1) the use was for the benefit of an indefinite … Francis was clearly deemed to be an institution of public charity and the fact that the vast majority of patients paid for care was not a valid basis to remove that classification “so long as charity was dispensed to all

Feiling

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 2026

As such, Feiling has failed to establish indigent status. Moreover, Feiling’s Amended Complaint would not survive threshold review. … an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v.

People v. Zayas

159 Ill. App. 3d 554 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 26, 1987

The court found Braun to be highly qualified in the field and also found the State was not required to establish that hypnosis was a field possessing a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. … However, our supreme court has subsequently determined that Daley does not apply retroactively, nor would the death-qualifying of a jury despite such a proper waiver prejudice a defendant. People v.

Jones-Broadway

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2026

mention qualified immunity in the section heading of their motion to dismiss. … The Court declines Jones- Broadway’s invitation to depart from clearly established precedent.

People v. Craig

Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 12, 2002

Orange , 121 Ill. 2d 364 (1988), out supreme court held that section 115-10.1 is constitutional: "[T]he statute [i]s clearly within the legislature's authority. (See People v. … Also, it is clear that the State did not offer to immunize these two witnesses.

Lieberman v. Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit Railroad

141 Ill. 140 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1892

The term “railroad” as used in the act of 1872, is clearly broad enough to include an elevated railroad, and we think the Legislature clearly intended to use the word in a sense sufficiently broad and general to include railroads … act included steam railways, said: “The power given by the act is to make any railway; and it is not shown that the term railway has any definite meaning requiring it to be made on a level; and I can not think it can be qualified

Richardson v. Roney

382 Ill. 528 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1943

She made a will by which she devised the farm lands to trustees to convert into cash and pay the proceeds to the Trustees of the University of Illinois to establish a foundation or charitable trust, to be known as “The Lydia … The language clearly so shows. The words “of her the said Lydia E. Parker who may survive her,” clearly refer to the brothers and sister “of her” the said Lydia E. Parker.

Swain v. City of Chicago

2014 IL App (1st) 122769 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 13, 2014

We concluded that the plaintiff was injured while crossing outside of a marked crosswalk and the evidence clearly established that the metal plate was located outside of the crosswalk. ¶ 22 The clear … Since plaintiff was injured stepping into an area that the City clearly had not intended for pedestrian use, the City did not owe plaintiff any duty pursuant to section 3-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. 745

A.J. Maggio Co. v. Willis

197 Ill. 2d 397 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 27, 2001

With the addition of paragraph (e) in 1967, however, we established the rule against successive petitions for rehearing in the appellate court. … The meaning of “no other petitions” does not need to be qualified or explained by yet another phrase such as that supplied by Maggio.

Sommer v. Village of Glenview

79 Ill. 2d 383 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1980

On March 16, 1979, more than 30 days prior to the next general election in the village, petitions bearing the signatures of 1,349 duly qualified voters were filed with the village clerk. … Clearly, this provision constitutes a limitation on a home rule unit’s power to tax as its electorate sees fit, and therefore creates an additional conflict with article VII, section 6, of the Constitution.

People v. Lidster

202 Ill. 2d 1 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2002

Once the officers witnessed defendant’s erratic driving, they clearly had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for further inquiry. See People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 433 (2001); People v. Brodack, 296 Ill. … , known crime, as opposed to a roadblock established to discover evidence of crime in general.

O'Neill v. Harding

233 Ill. App. 444 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1924

Is it not a more probable presumption that if the legislature had intended to establish such a system of pensions, the legislature would have expressed the idea explicitly! … To arrive at such an intention, it is necessary to import into the statute an idea that is not clearly inferable from the language of the statute.

Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont

284 Ill. App. 3d 848 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 25, 1996

The petitioner must establish: (1) a certain and clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (2) irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) absence of adequate legal remedies, and (4) a likelihood of success on the … All easements are limited and qualified by the use that established the prescriptive right. Peters v. Milks Grove Special Drainage District No. 1, 243 Ill. App. 3d 14, 19 , 610 N.E.2d 1385 (1993).

People v. Evans

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 15, 2006

Defendant's claim is based upon two specific grounds: (1) the State failed to establish an adequate foundation for Carter's testimony that defendant kicked or stamped Casey and (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish … "Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel." People v. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d 179, 188, 745 N.E.2d 1194, 1200 (2000).

Libbra v. Madison County Regional Board of School Trustees

346 Ill. App. 3d 867 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 11, 2004

Clearly, section 7 — 7 of the School Code imposes a “stay of enforcement” of “further proceedings” when judicial review is sought. 105 ILCS 5/7 — 7 (West 2002). … Section 7 — 7 just as clearly does not give authority to stay the election process as controlled by the Election Code.

Dallas v. Granite City Steel Co.

64 Ill. App. 2d 409 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 8, 1965

It is defendant’s contention that there is no evidence which shows how plaintiff was injured, and that there is no testimony in the record to establish what instrumentality caused plaintiff’s injury. … Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in the manner and words used to inform the jury that plaintiff was not qualified to testify.