official inquiry in Illinois

2014Where is the offender?" Id. ¶ 44 The Collins court construed the word "investigate" to mean " 'to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry,' 'to make a systematic examination,' and 'to conduct an official inquiry.' " Id. at 985 (quoting Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 636 (1985)). 18 1-13-2315 The reviewing court further defined "investigate" to mean " 'to inquire into (a matter) systematically; to make (a suspect) the subject of a criminal inquiry' and '[t]o make an official inquiry.' " Id. (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 830 (7th ed. 1999)). ¶ 45 We upheld the B

2014Where is the offender?" Id. ¶ 44 The Collins court construed the word "investigate" to mean " 'to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry,' 'to make a systematic examination,' and 'to conduct an official inquiry.' " Id. at 985 (quoting Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 636 (1985)). 18 1-13-2315 The reviewing court further defined "investigate" to mean " 'to inquire into (a matter) systematically; to make (a suspect) the subject of a criminal inquiry' and '[t]o make an official inquiry.' " Id. (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 830 (7th ed. 1999)). ¶ 45 We upheld the B

2011Collins contends that her duties as a police dispatcher aide were investigative and relies on the decision in Diedrich v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 381 Ill.

2011Dec. 409 , 887 N.E.2d 553 . ¶ 24 In Collins, we pointed out that the legislature has not defined the term "investigative work" and considered dictionary definitions. "`Investigate' is defined as `to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry,' `to make a systematic examination,' and `to conduct an official inquiry.' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 636 (1985).

2002Harbor , 378 U.S. 52 (1964), where it was used to explain the importance of a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when subpoenaed to testify in an official inquiry.

2002Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), where it was used to explain the importance of a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when subpoenaed to testify in an official inquiry.

1924The legislature realized that in situations such as that presented in the case at bar, a public official may abuse the confidential position he occupies and serve his private interests at the expense of his public duties, and they have accordingly wisely provided that all contracts made under such situations “shall not be lawful,” and, without regard to whether the public official in a given case does or does not abuse his position, that “any and all contracts” in which even such a possibility is presented, “shall be null and void.” As was well pointed out by the Supreme Court of Maine, in rep

1917That the rights and powers of a receiver are not limited to those possessed by the insolvent corporation, with reference to its assets, has been clearly held in Peabody v. New England Water-Works Co., 184 Ill. 625 .