simple analysis in Illinois

2024The Hojek court further explained that a substantive answer was appropriate because “a simple instruction would have been useful to the jury and provide[] an accurate answer to their question.” Id.

2007Therefore, at the point when the jury asked the question, the original written jury instructions which were available for the jury to rely on provided no explanation of the law on this issue. *** Moreover, a simple instruction would have been useful to the jury and provided an accurate answer to its question. *** This simple instruction would have resolved the confusion of the jurors and properly informed them not to infer, speculate or discuss whether medical expenses were covered by insurance.” Hojek, 314 Ill.

2003First and foremost, questions as to maintenance "`are presented in a great number of factual situations and resist a simple analysis'" (op. 279 Ill.Dec. at 921 , 801 N.E.2d at 595 , quoting Mayhall, 311 Ill.App.3d at 769 , 244 Ill.Dec. 227 , 725 N.E.2d at 25 ); the trial court determines the propriety, amount, and duration of maintenance; and the reviewing court is not the trier of fact in reweighing the factors set forth in section 504(a).

2003First and foremost, questions as to maintenance "`are presented in a great number of factual situations and resist a simple analysis'" (op. 279 Ill.Dec. at 921 , 801 N.E.2d at 595 , quoting Mayhall, 311 Ill.App.3d at 769 , 244 Ill.Dec. 227 , 725 N.E.2d at 25 ); the trial court determines the propriety, amount, and duration of maintenance; and the reviewing court is not the trier of fact in reweighing the factors set forth in section 504(a).

2020Thereafter, and on the date specified in the trial court’s order of Referral to Mandatory Arbitration, the case will be returned to the trial judge for further proceedings or for the entry of judgment on the award.” Cook County Cir. Ct. R. 25.11 (Dec. 1, 2014). -7- June 29, 2020 ¶ 24 A straightforward reading of local rule 25.11 reveals that absent rejection, the simple instruction for the circuit court is to enter “judgment on the award.” See id.

2020Thereafter, and on the date specified in the trial court’s order of Referral to Mandatory Arbitration, the case will be returned to the trial judge for further proceedings or for the entry of judgment on the award.” Cook County Cir. Ct. R. 25.11 (Dec. 1, 2014). ¶ 24 A straightforward reading of local rule 25.11 reveals that absent rejection, the simple instruction for the circuit court is to enter “judgment on the award.” See id.

1999See VonHoldt, 175 Ill.2d at 432-33 , 222 Ill.Dec. 302 , 677 N.E.2d 836 ; Glasoe, 107 Ill.2d at 13-14 , 88 Ill.Dec. 895 , 479 N.E.2d 915 ; Petersen, 76 Ill.2d at 40 , 27 Ill.Dec. 746 , 389 N.E.2d 1154 .

1999See VonHoldt, 175 Ill. 2d at 432-33 ; Glasoe, 107 Ill. 2d at 13-14 ; Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40 .

1999See VonHoldt, 175 Ill.2d at 432-33 , 222 Ill.Dec. 302 , 677 N.E.2d 836 ; Glasoe, 107 Ill.2d at 13-14 , 88 Ill.Dec. 895 , 479 N.E.2d 915 ; Petersen, 76 Ill.2d at 40 , 27 Ill.Dec. 746 , 389 N.E.2d 1154 .

1999See VonHoldt, 175 Ill. 2d at 432-33 ; Glasoe, 107 Ill. 2d at 13-14 ; Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40 .

1997The court reasoned that "a simple claim of ownership will be sufficient to create standing to challenge a forfeiture.” (Emphasis in original.) $191,910.00, 16 F.3d at 1058 .

1997The court reasoned that "a simple claim of ownership will be sufficient to create standing to challenge a forfeiture." (Emphasis in original.) $191,910.00, 16 F.3d at 1058 .

1993Ed. 2d 301 , 89 S. Ct. 337 , and concurred with Justice Black’s statement that “ ‘[w]e can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.’ ” Drinane, 153 Ill. 2d at 214 , 606 N.E.2d at 1184 , quoting Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 149 , 21 L.

1993Ed. 2d 301 , 89 S. Ct. 337 , and concurred with Justice Black’s statement that “ ‘[w]e can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.’ ” Drinane, 153 Ill. 2d at 214 , 606 N.E.2d at 1184 , quoting Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 149 , 21 L.

1915If they have retained to themselves the right of directing the mode of doing the work, then, if the work is done wrong, the simple principle is that they are responsible.” Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123 .

1915If they have retained to themselves the right of directing the mode of doing the work, then, if the work is done wrong, the simple principle is that they are responsible.” Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123 .

1902And see Welch v. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143 ; Seybel v. National Currency Bank, 54 Id. 288 ; Chapman v. Rose, 56 Id. 137.

1902And see Welch v. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143 ; Seybel v. National Currency Bank, 54 Id. 288 ; Chapman v. Rose, 56 Id. 137.

2025Nevertheless, by waiting until the waning days of the two-year period during which plaintiff could have filed his complaint, plaintiff, like the plaintiff in Kilpatrick, 2023 IL App (2d) 230088 ¶ 24 , exposed himself to the peril that the limitations period might expire if things did not proceed without incident. ¶ 20 We emphasize here that the reason plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed was a simple error that had nothing to do with the electronic filing system.

1996To clarify what procedures are required, we look to the Matthews ( 424 U.S. at 335 , 47 L.

1996To clarify what procedures are required, we look to the Matthews ( 424 U.S. at 335 , 47 L.

1993Ed. 2d 301 , 89 S. Ct. 337 , and concurred with Justice Black’s statement that “ ‘[w]e can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.’ ” Drinane, 153 Ill. 2d at 214 , 606 N.E.2d at 1184 , quoting Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 149 , 21 L.

1993Ed. 2d 301 , 89 S. Ct. 337 , and concurred with Justice Black’s statement that “ ‘[w]e can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.’ ” Drinane, 153 Ill. 2d at 214 , 606 N.E.2d at 1184 , quoting Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 149 , 21 L.

1992The court, citing no Illinois cases, stated: “This rule is based on the simple principle long ago stated by Judge Cardozo, that ‘no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.’ Messersmith v. American Fidelity Co., 232 N.Y. 161 , 133 N.E. 432 (1921).

1992The court, citing no Illinois cases, stated: “This rule is based on the simple principle long ago stated by Judge Cardozo, that ‘no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.’ Messersmith v. American Fidelity Co., 232 N.Y. 161 , 133 N.E. 432 (1921).

1991Kilfoy, 122 Ill.

1990(Cook v. Industrial Comm’n (1988), 176 Ill.

1990The simple rule is that the Commission's decision will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence; but when no new evidence is introduced, reviewing courts will apply an extra degree of scrutiny in making this determination. ( Cook v. Industrial Comm'n (1988), 176 Ill.

1988Dean v. Talman Home Federal Savings & Loan Association (1987), 163 Ill.

1988(Cf. Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner Equipment Rental & Excavating Co. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 481, 486 , 394 N.E.2d 403, 406 .) Moreover, a simple inquiry into the progress of a job being performed by a subcontractor will not render the inquiring party liable.

1988(Cf. Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner Equipment Rental & Excavating Co. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 481, 486 , 394 N.E.2d 403, 406 .) Moreover, a simple inquiry into the progress of a job being performed by a subcontractor will not render the inquiring party liable.

1984Nothing in the record suggests that Stroh’s detention at the time the inquiry was made was any different than the pre-arrest seizure described in Summers, and that court specifically found the type of seizúre there was “[i]n sharp contrast to the custodial interrogation in Dunaway [Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200 , 60 L.

1984Nothing in the record suggests that Stroh’s detention at the time the inquiry was made was any different than the pre-arrest seizure described in Summers, and that court specifically found the type of seizúre there was “[i]n sharp contrast to the custodial interrogation in Dunaway [Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200 , 60 L.

1976This court, in applying the simple rule of interpretation that an instrument will be given effect in all its parts, has viewed the ambiguous character of the first limitation in such a manner that the second limitation can also be given effect, and held that the first limitation creates a life estate, since to hold otherwise would make all the language of the gift over meaningless. [Citations.] ” ( 29 Ill. 2d 354, 357 .) Applying the “simple rule of interpretation” enunciated in Griffin we hold that under paragraphs “Second” and subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph “Third” of their join