Bruss v. Klein

12 Citing cases

  1. Chicago's Pizza v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise

    384 Ill. App. 3d 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that a practice is “deceptive” if it creates a “likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” regarding whether the plaintiff sponsors, approves of, or is affiliated with the defendant's products

    Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392 (1984) (an appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficiently complete record of proceedings at the trial court level to support a claim of error, and a reviewing court will resolve any doubts arising from the incompleteness of the record against the appellant). Bruss v. Klein, 210 Ill. App. 3d 72 (1991), is instructive. In Bruss, the defendants presented a motion for directed finding at the close of the plaintiffs case, which the trial court denied.

  2. Deli Source, Inc. v. Nationwide Transp., Inc.

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 180979 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    In Chicago's Pizza, the evidence the defendants submitted consisted of their trial exhibits, most, but not all, of which were the same as the plaintiffs' exhibits. Finding Bruss v. Klein, 210 Ill. App. 3d 72, 78 (1991), instructive, the Chicago's Pizza court further noted that a ruling on a motion for a directed finding is not " 'a determination that [the] plaintiff's testimony was credible and that his case was thus proved, precluding a judgment for [the] defendants at the conclusion of that trial.' " Chicago's Pizza, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 861 (quoting Bruss, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 78 (following the denial of the defendants' motion for a directed finding, one witness testified for the defendants)).

  3. Pincham v. Chi. Title Land Tr. Co.

    2017 Ill. App. 160660 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ¶ 12 In an option contract, the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price and within a certain time. Bruss v. Klein, 210 Ill. App. 3d 72, 79 (1991) (citing Morris v. Goldthorp, 390 Ill. 185, 191 (1945)). A contract for the sale of property, for which specific performance could be granted, does not exist until an option is exercised according to its terms.

  4. Wolfram Partnership v. Lasalle National Bank

    328 Ill. App. 3d 207 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 74 times
    Finding a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff exercised its option in accordance with the parties' understanding

           An option to purchase contained in a lease has been described as a contract by which the lessor-owner grants the lessee the right to purchase the premises at a fixed price within a certain time frame. Keogh v. Peck, 316 Ill. 318, 328, 147 N.E. 266, 269 (1925); Bruss v. Klein,Cities Service Oil Co. v. Viering, 210 Ill.App.3d 72, 79, 154 Ill.Dec. 683, 568 N.E.2d 904, 908 (1991). The option, when accepted and exercised according to its terms, becomes a present contract for the sale of the property and the lease agreement extinguishes, thereby transforming the parties' relationship from lessor-lessee to vendor-vendee.

  5. Wehde v. Regional Transportation Authority

    237 Ill. App. 3d 664 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 22 times
    In Wehde v. Regional Transportation Authority, 237 Ill. App.3d 664 (1992) (Wehde I), this court reversed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the Wehdes' claim and an order granting defendant's motion for judgment at the close of plaintiffs' case.

    First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has sustained its burden of proving a prima facie case by presenting at least some evidence on every element essential to the underlying cause of action. ( Bruss v. Klein (1991), 210 Ill. App.3d 72, 78; Drew v. Whittington (1987), 158 Ill. App.3d 387, 391.) If a prima facie case has not been established, the court should grant defendant's motion and enter judgment in his favor.

  6. Totz v. Continental Du Page Acura

    236 Ill. App. 3d 891 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that failure of a used car dealer to disclose a known history of vehicle damage was actionable under the Illinois CFA, regardless of the existence of a common law duty to disclose

    The manifest weight of the evidence standard is the proper one to employ if a claim is raised on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to support a judgment entered after a bench trial. ( Bruss v. Klein (1991), 210 Ill. App.3d 72, 78.) A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if a contrary conclusion is evident from the evidence presented at trial. Bruss, 210 Ill. App.3d at 78-79.

  7. Swanson v. Village of Lake in the Hills

    598 N.E.2d 430 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that, for purposes of conferring disability benefits on a municipal police officer, the term "line of duty" is used less restrictively in the Public Employee Disability Act ( 5 ILCS 345/1 (West 2004)) than in applicable provisions of the Code

    A reviewing court will not reverse a ruling following a bench trial unless the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. ( Bruss v. Klein (1991), 210 Ill. App.3d 72, 78.) "The trial judge, as the trier of fact, is in a position superior to a court of review to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, to judge their credibility and to determine the weight their testimony should receive." ( In re Application of the County Treasurer (1989), 131 Ill.2d 541, 549.)

  8. Core Mech. v. JR Indus.

    2023 Ill. App. 211661 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    An option to purchase in the real estate context is an agreement whereby the owner of a property agrees that another person shall have the right to purchase the property in the future. Bruss v. Klein, 210 Ill.App.3d 72, 79 (1991) (citing Morris v. Goldthorp, 390 Ill. 185, 191 (1945)). But to do so, the option must be exercised in accordance with its terms (id.), and "[t] he lessee must exercise the option in strict conformity with all conditions prescribed and not waived by the lessor."

  9. 9 W. Erie Holdings, L.L.C. v. Aspen Thorn, L.L.C.

    2015 Ill. App. 14 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    As a matter of law, in Illinois to be valid, an option to purchase contract cannot be indefinite. Wolfram P'Ship v. LaSalle National Bank, 328 Ill. App. 3d 107, 216 (2001) ("An option to purchase *** has been described as a contract by which [the seller] grants the [purchaser] the right to purchase the premises at a fixed price within a certain time frame." (Emphasis added.)); see also Bruss v. Klein, 201 Ill. App. 3d 72, 79 (1991) ("An option is a contract by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a time certain." (Emphasis added.)); see also Bonde v. Weber, 6 Ill. 2d 365, 374 (1955) (stating that option contracts contain two elements, "an offer to sell which does not become a contract until accepted, and a contract to leave the offer open for a specified time.

  10. Raclaw v. Fay, Conmy & Co.

    282 Ill. App. 3d 764 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that "[a]n agency relationship created by apparent authority flows from the acts of the principal

    The standard of review to apply when a challenge is made to the trial court's ruling, following a bench trial, is whether the trial court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Bruss v. Klein, 210 Ill. App.3d 72, 78, 569 N.E.2d 904, 908 (1991). For a judgment to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellant must present evidence that is so strong and convincing as to overcome, completely, the evidence and presumptions, if any, existing in the appellee's favor.