Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.37s
392 Ill. App. 3d 461 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 16, 2009
The intrastate detainers statute does not conflict with but somewhat qualifies the speedy-trial statute. Penrod, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 718 . … “This burden includes a demonstration that he caused no delay, which fact must be affirmatively established by the record.” Boyce, 51 Ill. App. 3d at 554 .
Cited 28 timesPublished114 Ill. App. 3d 454 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 28, 1983
The legislature has clearly decided that a blood alcohol test performed by an individual without a permit and not according to certain standards is unacceptable as evidence in a prosecution for driving while under the influence … Although that evidence tends to establish that defendant had been drinking, and that by her own estimation she was intoxicated, a substantial part of the State’s proof on this issue came through the testimony of Dr.
Cited 5 timesPublished293 Ill. App. 3d 180 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1997
We conclude that, although the vehicle sticker requirement has an apparent legitimate revenue-raising purpose, this hardly equates with the "compelling” public safety purpose of a DUI checkpoint and does not qualify as a … In examining whether such a checkpoint was effective in advancing the public interest, the Court clearly implied that it was the domain of "politically accountable officials” to decide "which among reasonable alternative
Cited 6 timesPublishedFryzel v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
173 Ill. App. 3d 788 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 9, 1988
PRESIDING JUSTICE HARTMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The Director of the Illinois Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) appeals the circuit court’s denial of his request for declaratory and other relief to establish … The circuit court held that section 7a of the Act exempted active express trusts, section 2a did not repeal section 7a and holders of active express trusts who possess property that does not qualify as abandoned are not subject
Cited 9 timesPublishedApplebaum v. RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
231 Ill. 2d 429 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2008
The plain language of Rule 756, however, clearly refutes such a claim. … Peters, 926 F.2d 668, 669-70 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Lawyers who do not pay their dues violate a legal norm, but not one established for the protection of clients”), Johnson v.
Cited 34 timesPublished982 N.E.2d 953 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 9, 2013
Then, after approximately 10 minutes, respondent began speaking more clearly. … To overcome this presumption, a party challenging a statute must clearly establish that it violates the constitution. [Citation.]
Cited 15 timesPublishedIllinois Landscape Contractors Association v. The Department of Labor
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 applies.
Cited 0 timesPublished2011 IL App (3d) 90721 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 27, 2011
The prosecutor indicated that she objected to any instruction on a lesser included offense and stated the only offense that would qualify as a lesser included offense would be aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/ … However, it is well established that “[t]he waiver rule is one of administrative convenience rather than jurisdiction.” People v. Smith, 106 Ill. 2d 327, 333 (1985).
Cited 21 timesPublished637 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 8, 1986
unreasonableness of differentiating between employees in terms of what was viewed the aleatory circumstance of a CBA, stating in part (id. at 150-51, 85 Ill.Dec. at 479 , 473 N.E.2d at 1284 ): It would be unreasonable to immunize … Such a rule of law would delegate to unions and unionized employers the power to exempt themselves from whatever state labor standards they disfavored. *42 Clearly, § 301 does not grant the parties to a collective-bargaining
Cited 14 timesPublished686 F. Supp. 686 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 21, 1988
Clearly — NO! … That decision, however, is clearly within the discretion of internal prison management.
Cited 4 timesPublishedAlano v. Industrial Commission
282 Ill. App. 3d 531 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 1996
The focus of the Commission’s analysis must be upon the degree to which the claimant’s medical disability impairs his employability, and "if an employee is qualified for and capable of obtaining gainful employment without … From our review of the record, we cannot say that the opposite conclusion from that reached by the Commission is clearly apparent.
Cited 10 timesPublishedAppellate 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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLocal 7-641, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. Department of Labor
106 Ill. App. 3d 476 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 23, 1982
Dove (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 109 , 203 N.E.2d 892 — the Illinois Inheritance Tax Act was clearly modeled after the New York act and, in the third — People v. … Because we believe that the legislature did not intend to automatically qualify locked-out employees for benefits under the amendment regardless of their participation in the labor dispute, we see no basis for a holding that
Cited 3 timesPublished238 Ill. 2d 33 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2010
Because the language chosen by our legislature has not clearly established its intent to impose the same high burden of proof present in a criminal trial at the probable cause stage of a SVP proceeding, this court will not … considered, probable cause is established.
Cited 108 timesPublished254 N.E.3d 862 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 5, 2024
The court clearly considered several options, including electronic monitoring and home confinement, as alternatives to detention and found them wanting. … ¶ 33 The trial court here clearly considered alternatives to detention and discussed them at length at the hearing.
Cited 19 timesPublishedCesca v. Western Illinois University Board of Trustees
District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 2024
The qualifier of “hope” plainly renders this statement an unenforceable promise. Cf. Galligan v. Adtalem Glob. Educ. Inc., No. 17 C 6310, 2019 WL 423356, at *7 (N.D. Ill. … The first is that the Code of Student Conduct clearly disclaims an intent to be bound. See Code of Student Conduct: C.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJames Pennington, Jr. v. Flora Community Unit School District No 35
District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024
The School District argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 because it is immunized from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity … The District first points to Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act (Id. at p. 6).
Cited 0 timesUnknownChadha v. North Park Elementary School Association
428 Ill. Dec. 790 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 20, 2018
Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. … responding party to produce “clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability” under the Act.
Cited 5 timesUnpublished104 N.E.3d 1158 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2018
To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing that it violates the constitution. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872, ¶ 22. … Thus, the State’s suggestion runs counter to established law.
Cited 47 timesPublishedRauner v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31
District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 2019
Lugar specifically left open the question whether private defendants charged with § 1983 liability for invoking a state statute later declared unconstitutional are entitled to qualified immunity. … In Wyatt, the Court answered that question in the negative, holding that qualified immunity “acts to safeguard government, and thereby protects the public at large, not to benefit its agents,” rationales that “are not
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna