Benbenek v. Chicago Park District

7 Citing cases

  1. Kraft v. City of Chicago

    2017 Ill. App. 153444 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014)) on the grounds defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty of care because she was not an intended and permitted user of the revetment. In general, we review a motion to dismiss a complaint de novo. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App. 3d 930, 932 (1996). ¶ 14 Legal Standards

  2. Gofis v. County of Cook

    324 Ill. App. 3d 407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Also, plaintiffs' reference to what an attorney for the Board may have said with respect to the statute's ambiguity is irrelevant, since statutory interpretation is exclusively the province of the court. See Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 932 (1996). Next, plaintiffs argue that unless a state law expressly limits the home rule unit's power, the home rule unit may act concurrently with the State. From this proposition, they conclude that since the Board is the legislative body of Cook County, it is the only entity that can approve and authorize legislation.

  3. Hobert v. Covenant Children's Home

    309 Ill. App. 3d 640 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 9 times
    In Hobert, the plaintiff brought a suit against a social worker and his employer, Covenant Children's Home (Covenant), for injuries sustained as a result of alleged sexual abuse by the social worker.

    On appeal from an order dismissing a complaint, this court applies the de novo standard of review. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 665 N.E.2d 500 (1996). Before the enactment of section 13-202.2, sexual abuse claims were subject to the statute of limitations set forth in section 13-202.

  4. Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc.

    694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that " corporation is a legal entity which exists separate and distinct from its shareholders, directors and officers. Accordingly, shareholders, directors and officers are generally not liable for a corporation's obligations."

    On appeal from an order dismissing a complaint, this court applies the de novo standard of review. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 665 N.E.2d 500 (1996). Neither party disputes that Fred Haas was an officer and agent of Haas Haas. Under the Act, he could be ordered to fulfill the Commission order.

  5. People v. Ellis

    296 Ill. App. 3d 862 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that a state impersonation statute “exists to protect citizens who would be harmed or deceived by those acting under the color of authority”

    In reviewing an order on a motion to dismiss, we apply a de novo standard of review. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 932 (1996). The sole issue presented in this case involves the interpretation of section 32—5.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides that "[a] person who knowingly and falsely represents himself to be a peace officer of any jurisdiction commits a Class 4 felony."

  6. Zelenka v. Krone

    294 Ill. App. 3d 248 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    In Zelenka, the Appellate Court, Third District, held that the exception to the six-year statute of repose created by section 13-214.3(d) is applicable only when the assets of a deceased are distributed under the Probate Act and not when the assets pass via an inter vivos trust.

    On appeal from an order dismissing a complaint, this court applies the de novo standard of review. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 665 N.E.2d 500 (1996). ANALYSIS

  7. Hutson v. Hartke

    292 Ill. App. 3d 411 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that cause of action accrued not when plaintiff knew her bronchial tubes were permanently weakened, but rather when plaintiff "experienced an identifiable episode which irritated her nose and throat and started a pattern of coughing that subsequently worsened and continued for weeks"

    On appeal, the plaintiff contends that her complaint was timely filed because her cause of action did not accrue until she first learned that her injury may have been wrongfully caused, i.e., on September 8, 1993, or at the earliest, August 31, 1993. The standard of review of a trial court's order on a motion to dismiss is de novo. Benbenek v. Chicago Park District, 279 Ill. App.3d 930, 932, 665 N.E.2d 500, 502 (1996). Section 13-202 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires: