number of relevant factors in Illinois

2021Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974) (cited as authority in Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429-30 ). ¶ 32 The record in this case fails to reflect that, in awarding attorney fees equal to 100% of the lodestar, the trial court considered a number of relevant factors.

2020Other factors for consideration include the following: the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved; the skill required to perform the legal services properly; and the amount involved and the result obtained. - 17 - No. 1-17-2325 Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974) (cited as authority in Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429-30 ). ¶ 32 The record in this case fails to reflect that, in awarding attorney fees equal to 100% of the lodestar, the trial court considered a number of relevant factors.

2021This is because we recognize the trial court is in the best position to gauge a number of relevant factors when deciding an appropriate sentence, such as “the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Musgrave, 2019 IL App (4th) 170106, ¶ 56 .

2020This is because we recognize the trial court is in the best position to gauge a number of relevant factors when deciding an appropriate sentence, such as “the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Musgrave, 2019 IL App (4th) 170106, ¶ 56 .

2020Applying the version of the federal successor liability test from Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1974), later articulated in Musikiwamba v. ESSI, Inc., 760 F.2d 740, 750-53 (7th Cir. 1985), the appellate majority found a number of relevant factors were met here.

2013Our supreme court has identified a number of relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant’s statement was made in a custodial setting, including: “(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence or absence of family and friends of the individual; (4) any indicia of a formal arrest procedure, such as the show of weapons or force, physical restraint, booking or fingerprinting; (5) the manner by which the individual arrived at the place of questioning; and (6) the age, intel

2013Our supreme court has identified a number of relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant’s statement was made in a custodial setting, including: “(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence or absence of family and friends of the individual; (4) any indicia of a formal arrest procedure, such as the show of weapons or force, physical restraint, booking or fingerprinting; (5) the manner by which the individual arrived at the place of questioning; and (6) the age, intel

1992App. 3d 137 , 397 N.E.2d 451 .) Rather, such determination rests upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances (Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner, 76 Ill. 2d 481 , 394 N.E.2d 403 ), and this court has set forth a number of relevant factors, including the following: “(1) supervision and control of the work; (2) retention of the right to supervise and control the work; (3) constant participation in ongoing activities at the construction site; (4) supervision and coordination of subcontractors; (5) responsibility for taking safety precautions at the jobsite; (6) authority to issue change orders

1992App. 3d 137 , 397 N.E.2d 451 .) Rather, such determination rests upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances (Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner, 76 Ill. 2d 481 , 394 N.E.2d 403 ), and this court has set forth a number of relevant factors, including the following: “(1) supervision and control of the work; (2) retention of the right to supervise and control the work; (3) constant participation in ongoing activities at the construction site; (4) supervision and coordination of subcontractors; (5) responsibility for taking safety precautions at the jobsite; (6) authority to issue change orders

1992App. 3d 6,11 , 445 N.E.2d 39, 42 .) (See also Zukauskas v. Bruning (1989), 179 Ill.

1992App. 3d 137 , 397 N.E.2d 451 .) Rather, such determination rests upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances (Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner, 76 Ill. 2d 481 , 394 N.E.2d 403 ), and this court has set forth a number of relevant factors, including the following: “(1) supervision and control of the work; (2) retention of the right to supervise and control the work; (3) constant participation in ongoing activities at the construction site; (4) supervision and coordination of subcontractors; (5) responsibility for taking safety precautions at the jobsite; (6) authority to issue change orders

1992App. 3d 137 , 397 N.E.2d 451 .) Rather, such determination rests upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances (Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner, 76 Ill. 2d 481 , 394 N.E.2d 403 ), and this court has set forth a number of relevant factors, including the following: “(1) supervision and control of the work; (2) retention of the right to supervise and control the work; (3) constant participation in ongoing activities at the construction site; (4) supervision and coordination of subcontractors; (5) responsibility for taking safety precautions at the jobsite; (6) authority to issue change orders

1987App. 3d 286, 290 , 500 N.E.2d 134 , stated a number of relevant factors in determining such status, including the following: “[The] right to control the manner in which work is done; method of payment; right to discharge; skill required in the work to be done; who provides tools, materials, or equipment; whether the workmen’s occupation is related to that of the alleged employer; and whether the alleged employer deducted for withholding tax.” The single most important factor in determining the parties’ relationship is the right to control the manner in which the work is done.

1987(Wenholdt v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 76, 81 , 447 N.E.2d 404 .) An independent contractor has been defined as one who undertakes to produce a given result, without being controlled as to the method by which he attains that result.

1987(Wenholdt v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 76, 81 , 447 N.E.2d 404 .) An independent contractor has been defined as one who undertakes to produce a given result, without being controlled as to the method by which he attains that result.