highest standard in Illinois

2009Storer, 131 Ill.

2009Storer, 131 Ill.

2020Indeed, Sanchez recognized that “Green’s core rationale [was] that school children require the highest standard of care in their transport.” Sanchez, 2016 IL App (2d) 150554, ¶ 30 .

2020Indeed, Sanchez recognized that “Green’s core rationale [was] that school children require the highest standard of care in their transport.” Sanchez, 2016 IL App (2d) 150554, ¶ 30 .

2003Garcia, 43 Ill.App.3d at 517 , 2 Ill.Dec. 392 , 357 N.E.2d 559 .

2003Garcia, 43 Ill.

2018That, we have repeatedly left for jurors to decide without any guidance, suggesting that the term “needs no definition because the words themselves sufficiently convey its meaning.” People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934, ¶ 24 .

2017That, we have repeatedly left for jurors to decide without any guidance, suggesting that the term "needs no definition because the words themselves sufficiently convey its meaning." People v. Downs , 2015 IL 117934 , ¶ 24, 410 Ill.Dec. 239 , 69 N.E.3d 784 .

2015At oral argument, however, both 2 Julie A. Seaman, Black Boxes, 58 Emory L.J. 427 , 432 (2008). -8- defendant and the State expressed that to tell the jury that reasonable doubt is not defined as a percentage would have strayed into providing a definition of reasonable doubt and would have constituted error.” 2014 IL App (2d) 121156 , ¶ 28 n.1. ¶ 30 Thus, both defendant and the State have rejected as error what the appellate court described as the only acceptable answer it could think of to the jury’s percentage-based question.

2014At oral argument, however, both defendant and the State expressed that to tell the jury that reasonable doubt is not defined as a percentage would have strayed into providing a definition of reasonable doubt and would have constituted error. - 12 - 2014 IL App (2d) 121156 at 484 .

2014According to the Supreme Court, due process is violated only if under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood that the instructions allowed it to find the defendant guilty based upon a standard of proof that was less than beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. ¶ 36 Justice Carter then reviewed all of the trial court’s extensive (and correct) comments to the jury regarding the State’s burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the meaning of “reasonable doubt,” as well as all of the prosecutor’s comments (which included the statement that be

2014According to the Supreme Court, due process is violated only if under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood that the instructions allowed it to find the defendant guilty based upon a standard of proof that was less than beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. ¶ 36 Justice Carter then reviewed all of the trial court’s extensive (and correct) comments to the jury regarding the State’s burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the meaning of “reasonable doubt,” as well as all of the prosecutor’s comments (which included the statement that be

2001Defendants rely on Hammerman v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority , 148 Ill.

2001Defendants rely on Hammerman v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 148 Ill.

1987In re Estate of Glenos (1964), 50 Ill.

1987In re Estate of Glenos (1964), 50 Ill.

1987App.3d 374 , 442 N.E.2d 571 .) The representative is a fiduciary and is held to the highest standard of fair dealing and diligence, and his behavior will be closely scrutinized by the courts to insure his adherence to these high standards.

1987App. 3d 374 , 442 N.E.2d 571 .) The representative is a fiduciary and is held to the highest standard of fair dealing and diligence, and his behavior will be closely scrutinized by the courts to insure his adherence to these high standards.

1983(Nonnast v. Northern Trust Co. (1940), 374 Ill. 248, 261 , 29 N.E.2d 251 ; In re Estate of Storer (1971), 131 Ill.

1983(Nonnast v. Northern Trust Co. (1940), 374 Ill. 248, 261 , 29 N.E.2d 251 ; In re Estate of Storer (1971), 131 Ill.

2026Sanchez, 2016 IL App (2d) 150554, ¶ 27 ; Green, 381 Ill.

2025Our supreme court has provided several reasons for this exclusionary rule: “(1) a strong public policy favors encouraging improvements to enhance public safety; (2) subsequent remedial measures are not considered sufficiently probative of prior negligence, because later carefulness may simply be an attempt to exercise the highest standard of care; and (3) a jury may view such conduct as an admission of negligence.” Id. (citing Herzog v. Lexington Township, 167 Ill. 2d 288, 300-03 (1995)). ¶ 26 While certain exceptions to this rule exist, plaintiff has not argued that any apply.

2022In re Estate of O’Hare, 2015 IL App (2d) 140073, ¶ 8 . “[R]epresentatives of estates are deemed to be fiduciaries who are ‘held to the highest standard of fair dealing and diligence, and [their] behavior will be closely scrutinized by the courts to insure [their] adherence to these high standards.’ ” Matter of Estate of Dyniewicz, 271 Ill.

2020Because we “cannot say that the trial court’s comments created a reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted defendant on a standard of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt” (Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶ 62 ), we find no error, and defendant’s procedural default must be honored. ¶ 19 Defendant next contends that the trial court violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) when it failed to admonish the jury that defendant was not required to offer evidence on his own behalf and to ensure that potential jurors understood and accepted the principles that were explained. ¶ 20 Illinois

1996A school district transporting students by bus is to be held to the same standards of care as are imposed on a private party operating as a common carrier. ( Garrett, 139 Ill.App.3d at 574-75 , 93 Ill.Dec. at 877 , 487 N.E.2d at 702 .) It has long been held that a carrier of passengers is obligated to use the highest standard of care in regard to its employment practices.

1996A school district transporting students by bus is to be held to the same standards of care as are imposed on a private party operating as a common carrier. ( Garrett, 139 Ill.App.3d at 574-75 , 93 Ill.Dec. at 877 , 487 N.E.2d at 702 .) It has long been held that a carrier of passengers is obligated to use the highest standard of care in regard to its employment practices.

1995Hodges v. Percival (1890), 132 Ill. 53, 56-57 , 23 N.E. 423 .

1995Hodges v. Percival (1890), 132 Ill. 53, 56-57 , 23 N.E. 423 .

1994(In re Estate of Garbalinski (1983), 120 Ill.

1994App. 3d 265 , 505 N.E.2d 1034 , to support its conclusion that the natural accumulation rule applies, notwithstanding the highest standard of care required of common carriers.

1994The rationale for the imposition of the highest degree of care on common carriers "is that the degree of care should be commensurate with the danger to which the passenger is subjected, and the degree of care required to be exercised increases as the danger increases.” (Katamay v. Chicago Transit Authority (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 27, 30 , 289 N.E.2d 623, 625 .) In Davis v. South Side Elevated R.R.

1994The rationale for the imposition of the highest degree of care on common carriers "is that the degree of care should be commensurate with the danger to which the passenger is subjected, and the degree of care required to be exercised increases as the danger increases.” (Katamay v. Chicago Transit Authority (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 27, 30 , 289 N.E.2d 623, 625 .) In Davis v. South Side Elevated R.R.

1983App. 2d 232 , 134 N.E.2d 638 .) As a fiduciary to persons having an interest in the estate, the executor is bound to the highest standard of fair dealing and diligence.

1964Nonnast v. Northern Trust Co., 374 Ill 248, 261, 29 NE2d 251 ; In re Estate of Burger, 16 Ill App2d 510, 514, 149 NE2d 105 .

1953In Ditis v. Ahlvin Construction Co. 408 Ill. 416 , we said: “The fiduciary relationship between coadventurers ordinarily precludes one of them from purchasing or leasing property relating to the enterprise, either for himself or another, in the absence of full disclosure to his associates.” The fiduciary position occupied by Bressler cast upon him the burden of showing in this suit that his dealings were consistent with the highest standard of loyalty.