undisputed rule in Illinois

2023This presents a mixed question of law and fact because it asks “whether an undisputed rule of law as applied to established facts is or is not violated.” Engle, 2018 IL App (1st) 162602, ¶ 31 (citing Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 16 ).

2020Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 15 . ¶ 32 A mixed question of law and fact asks whether an undisputed rule of law as applied to established facts was or was not violated.

2019App. 2d 262 , 229 N.E.2d 314 (1967), in support of their argument that Rule 215(c) vests the trial court with discretion to refuse to bar the examiner's testimony or report for an undisputed violation of Rule 215(c).

2019App. 2d 262 , 229 N.E.2d 314 (1967), in support of their argument that Rule 215(c) vests the trial court with discretion to refuse to bar the examiner’s testimony or report for an undisputed violation of Rule 215(c).

2026Best, 228 Ill. 2d at 118 . ¶ 76 Further, nothing in the premarital agreement expressly prohibits separate property from being transmuted into marital property.

2021The majority fails to adhere to the undisputed principle of appellate review that we are required to affirm a conviction where, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, ‘ “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” (Emphasis added.) People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67 (quoting Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 ).

2021Id. at 243-44 .

2015“Mixed questions of fact and law are ‘questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 140810 way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ ” American Federation, 216 Ill. 2d at 577 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 289 n.19 (1982)). ¶ 30 The issues in this case do not involve the application of an undisputed rule of law to established facts.

2015“Mixed questions of fact and law are ‘questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 140810 way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ ” American Federation, 216 Ill. 2d at 577 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 289 n.19 (1982)). ¶ 30 The issues in this case do not involve the application of an undisputed rule of law to established facts.

2015“Mixed questions of fact and law are ‘questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 140810 way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ ” American Federation, 216 Ill. 2d at 577 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 289 n.19 (1982)). ¶ 30 The issues in this case do not involve the application of an undisputed rule of law to established facts.

2009The cases excluding the day of sentencing from the credit seek to prevent a defendant from receiving double credit: one day under section 5—8—7 for the portion of the sentencing day spent in presentencing detention and one day under section 3—6—3 for the portion of the same day spent after issuance of the mittimus commences the prison sentence in the Department’s legal (if not physical) custody.” (Emphasis added.) Williams, 394 Ill.

1992Carman, 63 Ill.

1981(People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 16 , 377 N.E.2d 28 ; People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 198 , 369 N.E.2d 888 .) As we have discussed, the jury in this case was informed in the definitional instruction for attempt murder that proof of defendant’s “intent to kill” was required, yet was also told in the issue instruction that “intent to commit murder” need be proven.

1981(People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 16 , 377 N.E.2d 28 ; People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 198 , 369 N.E.2d 888 .) As we have discussed, the jury in this case was informed in the definitional instruction for attempt murder that proof of defendant’s “intent to kill” was required, yet was also told in the issue instruction that “intent to commit murder” need be proven.

1981(People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 16 , 377 N.E.2d 28 ; People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 198 , 369 N.E.2d 888 .) As we have discussed, the jury in this case was informed in the definitional instruction for attempt murder that proof of defendant’s “intent to kill” was required, yet was also told in the issue instruction that “intent to commit murder” need be proven.

1981(People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 16 , 377 N.E.2d 28 ; People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 198 , 369 N.E.2d 888 .) As we have discussed, the jury in this case was informed in the definitional instruction for attempt murder that proof of defendant’s “intent to kill” was required, yet was also told in the issue instruction that “intent to commit murder” need be proven.

1966Erikson v. Fitzgerald, 342 Ill App 223, 96 NE2d 382 (1950).

1936(Robbins v. Lincoln Park Comrs. 332 Ill. 571 .) Sections 41 and 56 of the Roads and Bridges act are in pari materia with paragraph 1033 of the Cities and Villages act, and therefore must be construed together.

1931(Illinois Power and Light Corp. v. Parks, 322 Ill. 313 ; Crystal Lake Park District v. Consumers Co. 313 id. 395 ; Southwest Chicago Drainage District v. McMahon, 329 id. 478.) Market value means the value of the land for the most profitable use to which it is adapted.

1931(Illinois Power and Light Corp. v. Parks, 322 Ill. 313 ; Crystal Lake Park District v. Consumers Co. 313 id. 395 ; Southwest Chicago Drainage District v. McMahon, 329 id. 478.) Market value means the value of the land for the most profitable use to which it is adapted.

1897(Perry on Trusts, sec. 298.) And so we have expressly held.—-Witham v. Brooner, 63 Ill. 344 ; Lynch et al. v. Swayne et al. 83 id. 336.” But we caunot see that that case supports appellants’ contention in the case at bar.

1897In Kirkland v. Cox, 94 Ill. 400 , the undisputed principle was thus stated (p. 411): “Under the Statute of Uses, which is in force here, where an estate is conveyed to one person for the use of or upon a trust for another, and nothing more is said, the statute immediately transfers the legal estate to the use, and no trust is created although express words of trust are used.