proponent privilege in Illinois

2024However, if the “the opposing party challenges the presumption, then the proponent of the privilege must prove the existence of the essential elements giving rise to the privilege.” Id. at 329 .

2021The proponent of the exception must present evidence from which a “ ‘prudent person’ ” would have a “ ‘reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984)).

2015Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43 .

2015Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43 .

1998Cox v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 (1975); Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority, 8 Ill. 2d 37, 42 (1956); cf. Douglas v. Windham Superior Court, 157 Vt. 34, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 774, 780 (1991), citing King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).

1998Cox v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 *54 Ill.2d 416, 419-20, 337 N.E.2d 15 (1975); Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority, 8 Ill.2d 37, 42 , 132 N.E.2d 532 (1956); cf. Douglas v. Windham Superior Court, 157 Vt. 34, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 774, 780 (1991), citing King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y.1988).

1976App. 2d 387, 396 , 117 N.E .2d 683); the issue in a proceeding to probate a will is the due execution of the instrument as a will and the competency of the maker thereof (Schaefer v. Mazer (1935), 359 Ill. 621, 623 , 195 N.E. 442 ).

1976App. 2d 387, 396 , 117 N.E .2d 683); the issue in a proceeding to probate a will is the due execution of the instrument as a will and the competency of the maker thereof (Schaefer v. Mazer (1935), 359 Ill. 621, 623 , 195 N.E. 442 ).

1976If the proponent at a hearing establishes the will by sufficient competent evidence, it will be admitted to probate, unless there is proof of fraud, forgery, compulsion, or other improper conduct which is deemed sufficient to invalidate or destroy the will ( In re Estate of Knazek (1st Dist. 1954), 1 Ill.

1976If • the proponent at a hearing establishes the will by sufficient competent evidence, it will be admitted to probate, unless there is proof of fraud, forgery, compulsion, or other improper conduct which is deemed sufficient to invalidate or destroy the will (In re Estate of Knazek (1st Dist. 1954), 1 Ill.

2020Price, 404 Ill.

1992Without such record evidence, it is difficult to review the circuit court’s finding on this matter; however, a similar absence of such “threshold facts” proved fatal to the proponent of the privilege in Claxton v. Thackston (1990), 201 Ill.

1992App. 3d 232, 237 , 559 N.E.2d 82 .

1992(See Adam, 51 Ill. 2d at 49 .) If, however, the opposing party challenges the presumption, then the proponent of the privilege must prove the existence of the essential elements giving rise to the privilege.

1992(See Adam, 51 Ill.2d at 49 , 280 N.E.2d 205 .) If, however, the opposing party challenges the presumption, then the proponent of the privilege must prove the existence of the essential elements giving rise to the privilege.

1990Knief, 181 Ill.

1989Ed. 2d 759 , 85 S. Ct. 824 , as requiring the proponent of such a claim to present proof of the systematic and purposeful exclusion, in case after case, of black veniremen from juries.

1987However, if the proponent of the presumption introduces sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the burden of going forward with the evidence on that issue shifts to the party opposing the presumption. 2 (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63 , 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77 .) Thus, the application of a presumption in a given case is a question of law which must be decided in the first instance by the trial court.

1987However, if the proponent of the presumption introduces sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the burden of going forward with the evidence on that issue shifts to the party opposing the presumption. 2 (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63 , 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77 .) Thus, the application of a presumption in a given case is a question of law which must be decided in the first instance by the trial court.

1976App.2d 387, 396 , 117 N.E.2d 683 ); the issue in a *863 proceeding to probate a will is the due execution of the instrument as a will and the competency of the maker thereof ( Schaefer v. Mazer (1935), 359 Ill. 621, 623 , 195 N.E. 442 ). • 2, 3 When the statutory requirements for admission of a will to probate are complied with, no others can be prescribed. ( Shepherd v. Yokum (1926), 323 Ill. 328, 332 , 154 N.E. 156 ; In re Estate of Guinane (1st Dist. 1965), 65 Ill.

1976App.2d 387, 396 , 117 N.E.2d 683 ); the issue in a *863 proceeding to probate a will is the due execution of the instrument as a will and the competency of the maker thereof ( Schaefer v. Mazer (1935), 359 Ill. 621, 623 , 195 N.E. 442 ). • 2, 3 When the statutory requirements for admission of a will to probate are complied with, no others can be prescribed. ( Shepherd v. Yokum (1926), 323 Ill. 328, 332 , 154 N.E. 156 ; In re Estate of Guinane (1st Dist. 1965), 65 Ill.

1976App.2d 387, 396 , 117 N.E.2d 683 ); the issue in a *863 proceeding to probate a will is the due execution of the instrument as a will and the competency of the maker thereof ( Schaefer v. Mazer (1935), 359 Ill. 621, 623 , 195 N.E. 442 ). • 2, 3 When the statutory requirements for admission of a will to probate are complied with, no others can be prescribed. ( Shepherd v. Yokum (1926), 323 Ill. 328, 332 , 154 N.E. 156 ; In re Estate of Guinane (1st Dist. 1965), 65 Ill.

1887The executor of the will, proved “in common form,” might, at any time within thirty years, be compelled by a person, having an interest, to prove it per testes “in solemn form.” 1 Williams on Executors, (6th Am. ed.) foot pp. 325, 333, 334; Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 1 ; Redmond v. Collins, 4 Dev. 430 ; Etheridge v. Corprew, 3 Jones, 14 .