Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port

34 Citing cases

  1. Jacobs v. McKinney

    2014 Ill. App. 132320 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    When a record is lacking crucial facts, we presume that the circuit court acted properly by entering the challenged order and that the order is supported by whatever was omitted from our consideration. Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 419, 513 N.E.2d 506, 514 (1987). We presume that sufficient evidence was presented to support the ruling.

  2. McCarty v. Weatherford

    362 Ill. App. 3d 308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    " See also Schwendener, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 77, 829 N.E.2d at 830 (appellant has the burden of providing the reviewing court with a complete record); Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 419, 513 N.E.2d 506, 514 (1987) ("When portions of the record are lacking, it will be presumed that the trial court acted properly in entry of the challenged order and that the order is supported by the part of the record not before the reviewing court"); In re Estate of Jacobs, 189 Ill. App. 3d 625, 629, 545 N.E.2d 502, 504 (1989) (affirmance of the trial court's judgment is dictated when crucial facts are omitted from the record). As earlier stated, in terms of the Raynor defendants' summary-judgment motion, the record and the supplement thereto contain only (1) the transcripts of the depositions of Lawrence and John and (2) one of the unidentified documentary exhibits.

  3. Cutter v. Plowman

    2013 Ill. App. 120630 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    Thus, in the absence of a sufficiently complete record on appeal, a reviewing court will resolve all insufficiencies apparent therein against the appellant and will presume that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient legal and factual basis. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392; see also Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 419 (1987), citing Mileke v. Condell Memorial Hospital, 124 Ill. App. 3d 42, 48-49 (1984), In re marriage of Hofstetter, 102 Ill. App. 3d 392, 396 (1981) ("[i]t is not the obligation of the appellate court to search the record for evidence supporting reversal of the circuit court. *** When portions of the record are lacking, it will be presumed that the trial court acted properly in entry of the challenged order and that the order is supported by the part of the record not before the reviewing court"); but see Gonella Baking Co. v. Clara's Pasta di Casa, Ltd., 337 Ill. App. 3d 385, 388 (2003) (transcripts of the proceedings below may be unnecessary when this court confronts only a question of law and the circuit court's decision was based solely on the record before it). ΒΆ 30 The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact, but to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact actually exists. Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians et al. v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 2

  4. Watkins v. Office of State Appellate Defender

    2012 Ill. App. 111756 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 48 times
    Dismissing an IHRA retaliation claim against the Illinois Appellate Defender personally, and noting that, "at least in cases where the individual acted within the scope of his employment," Modern Metal "explicitly rejected" the argument that the IHRA provides for "liability against an individual employee ... because it prohibits a β€˜person’ from retaliating against another for filing a charge"

    In that case, since appellant did not provide a transcript, or bystander's report, of the hearing on a motion to vacate, there was no basis for holding that the trial court had committed an error in denying the motion. Foutch, 99 Ill.2d at 392, 76 Ill.Dec. 823, 459 N.E.2d at 959; see also Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill.2d 144, 156, 298 Ill.Dec. 201, 839 N.E.2d 524, 531–32 (2005) (holding that absent an adequate record preserving the claimed error, any doubts arising from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant, and the order of the circuit court will be affirmed); see also Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port Ltd., 160 Ill.App.3d 408, 419, 112 Ill.Dec. 92, 513 N.E.2d 506, 513–14 (1987) (β€œit is not the obligation of the appellate court to search the record for evidence supporting reversal of the circuit court. * * * When portions of the record are lacking, it will be presumed that the trial court acted properly in entry of the challenged order and that the order is supported by the part of the record not before the reviewing court.” (citing Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital, 124 Ill.App.3d 42, 48–49, 79 Ill.Dec. 78, 463 N.E.2d 216, 222 (1984), and In re Marriage of Hofstetter, 102 Ill.App.3d 392, 396, 58 Ill.Dec. 137, 430 N.E.2d 79, 82 (1981))). ΒΆ 32 In this case, defendant has failed to provide us with any report of the proceedings below.

  5. Williams v. Manchester

    372 Ill. App. 3d 211 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 8 times
    In Williams v. Manchester, 372 Ill.App.3d 211, 309 Ill.Dec. 722, 864 N.E.2d 963, 987 (2007), vacated in part, 228 Ill.2d 404, 320 Ill.Dec. 784, 888 N.E.2d 1 (2008), the court discussed Hall and quoted with approval passages explaining the court's decision to opt for the bright line rule.

    Moreover, while this would not preclude a jury from considering the matter as a question of fact, we cannot agree that, as a matter of law, it would be unforeseeable that a pregnant woman, injured through a person's negligence, would agree to endure the medical consequences to herself, or the fetus for that matter, regardless of their severity, simply for the sake of maintaining the pregnancy. See Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 415 (1987) (" 'foreseeability' is a factor in both the court's duty determination β€” which is a question of law [citations] β€” and the jury's proximate cause determination, which ordinarily is a question of fact [citations]"). This might be the reasonably foreseeable result where abortion is legally prohibited, but not where such intervention is lawful and available.

  6. Colin v. Brown

    2025 Ill. App. 241288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025)

    When a record is insufficient to support an appellant's claim, we may presume that the information that was omitted would support the ruling. Foutch, 99 Ill.2d at 391-92; Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill.App.3d 408, 419 (1987) (when a record is lacking crucial facts, we may presume that the circuit court acted properly by entering the challenged order and that the order is supported by whatever was omitted from our consideration). That presumption is warranted here.

  7. PPP-SCH Inc. v. SVAP Hoffman Plaza, L.P.

    2023 Ill. App. 220022 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    , will not be considered by this court. See Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill.App.3d 408, 419 (1987) (internal citations omitted) ("Without adequate support in the record, an allegation included in the statement of facts contained in an appellate brief lies outside the record; such unsupported factual references should be stricken and not considered on appeal from summary judgment adverse to the plaintiff.").

  8. In re Marriage of Proccichiani

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 210121 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    However, [REDACTED]'s flagrant disregard of the rules has, as noted, resulted in forfeiture of his contentions and, therefore, precluded him from demonstrating prima facie error such that reversal would be appropriate under Talandis. See Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill.App.3d 408, 417-20 (1987).

  9. Purdle v. Allstate Ins.

    2021 Ill. App. 210203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    It is well settled that appellate courts will not consider evidence or factual assertions outside of the record on appeal. Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill.App.3d 408, 419 (1987). "Mere legal conclusions unsupported by facts do not create an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." In re Marriage of Barnes, 324 Ill.App.3d 514, 519 (2001).

  10. Jennifer B. v. Jeffrey L. (In re A.L.)

    2021 IL App (2d) 200437 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    The supporting record demonstrates that Jeffrey sought to do so, but inexplicably only with respect to four minutes of the missing testimony from the "ripped" proceeding. ΒΆ 33 We note that Jeffrey's burden to provide an adequate record on appeal remains the same notwithstanding that Jennifer did not file an appellee brief. See Coleman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd., 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 417-19 (1987) (citing First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976)). Accordingly, in the absence of a properly certified transcript from the trial court proceedings or any acceptable substitute permitted under Rule 323 to support Jeffrey's claims of error, we must presume that the trial court's rulings were made in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis.