clearly-erroneous standard in Illinois

2016“The clearly-erroneous standard of review lies somewhere between a de novo and a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, but provides some deference to the agency’s experience and expertise.” Lombard Public Facilities Corp., 378 Ill.

2014Id.

2008Dow, 359 Ill.

2008Dow, 359 Ill.App.3d at 22 , 295 Ill.Dec. 133 , 832 N.E.2d 284 .

2006Du Page County Airport Authority, 358 Ill.

2006Du Page County Airport Authority, 358 Ill.

2005Similarly, in Ogden Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Bower , 348 Ill.

2005Similarly, in Ogden Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Bower, 348 Ill.

2005Du Page County Board of Review , 339 Ill.

2005Du Page County Board of Review, 339 Ill.

2005All the parties rely on this court's decision in Swank v. Department of Revenue , 336 Ill.

2005Swank , 336 Ill.

2025We also note that, “under any standard of review, a plaintiff to an administrative proceeding bears the burden of proof, and relief will be denied if he or she [or it] fails to sustain that burden.” Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 532-33 . ¶ 47 Both parties assert that the clearly-erroneous standard applies here.

2023Leach v. Dep’t of Employment Security, 2020 IL App (1st) 190299, ¶ 22 . ¶ 22 Before considering the merits of this appeal, we note that plaintiff submitted to the circuit court, in addition to the September 2020 medical note submitted in the Department proceedings, another medical note from the same physician dated March 5, 2021.

2023Id. (citing Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008)). ¶ 45 This case does not involve a question of law like the issue of statutory construction presented in Heelan—the meaning of “catastrophic injury” as used in section 10(a) of the Act.

2020Gruwell, 406 Ill.

2019Matlock, 2019 IL App (1st) 180645, ¶ 20 .

2018In contrast, however, plaintiff urges us to apply de novo review, citing Martin v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the Village of Shiloh , 2017 IL App (5th) 160344 , ¶ 12, 419 Ill.Dec. 223 , 92 N.E.3d 932 , where the court applied that standard when the facts were undisputed and the issue was whether a police officer was injured while performing an act of duty.

2018In contrast, however, plaintiff urges us to apply de novo review, citing Martin v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the Village of Shiloh , 2017 IL App (5th) 160344 , ¶ 12, 419 Ill.Dec. 223 , 92 N.E.3d 932 , where the court applied that standard when the facts were undisputed and the issue was whether a police officer was injured while performing an act of duty.

2018For example, urging us to apply the clearly-erroneous standard, defendants cite Howe v. Retirement Board of the Fireman's Annuity & Benefit Fund , 2015 IL App (1st) 141350 , ¶ 47, 390 Ill.Dec. 571 , 29 N.E.3d 503 , where the court applied that standard when the facts were undisputed and the question was whether a firefighter's injury resulted from an act of duty.

2018For example, urging us to apply the clearly-erroneous standard, defendants cite Howe v. Retirement Board of the Fireman's Annuity & Benefit Fund , 2015 IL App (1st) 141350 , ¶ 47, 390 Ill.Dec. 571 , 29 N.E.3d 503 , where the court applied that standard when the facts were undisputed and the question was whether a firefighter's injury resulted from an act of duty.

2017Petrovic v. Department of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 21 .

2015Accordingly, the DCFS determination is reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard. ¶ 49 The Reporting Act defines a neglected child as one who is not receiving the “care necessary for his or her well-being.” 325 ILCS 5/3 (West 2010); Slater, 2011 IL App (1st) 102914, ¶ 39 .

2014Id. at 387 . - 10 - 2014 IL App (2d) 121251 ¶ 25 Plaintiff argues that all issues raised on appeal involve mixed questions of fact and law and that thus the clearly-erroneous standard applies.

2014Id. at 387 . - 10 - 2014 IL App (2d) 121251 ¶ 25 Plaintiff argues that all issues raised on appeal involve mixed questions of fact and law and that thus the clearly-erroneous standard applies.

2014However, because we interpret the statute to preclude relief under the facts before us regardless of whether Dahl properly platted the property, our analysis involves only a question of law and our review is, therefore, de novo. ¶ 28 The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s - 12 - 2014 IL App (2d) 130055 intent in enacting the provision.

2014Here, the question of whether the proposed use of the plaintiffs' property as a shooting range comports with the language of the zoning ordinance is a mixed question of law and fact, triggering our application of the clearly-erroneous standard-of-review. ¶9 On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of their application unambiguously provided that a shooting range was permissible under the "health -5- 2014 IL App (1st) 133923 club or private recreation" permitted-use provision and that their zoning application should not have been denied.