Gray v. City of Plano

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Carolyn J.S. (In re Carolyn J.S.)

    2024 Ill. App. 3d 220250 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 23 Respondent cites to Koplin v. Hinsdale Hospital, 207 Ill.App.3d 219 (1990) and Gray v.City of Plano, 141 Ill.App.3d 575 (1986), to support her argument that the circuit court violated her right to due process by permitting the State to make its mid-hearing amendment. In Koplin, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to conform with the proofs, after he and the defendant rested their respective cases during a preliminary injunction hearing.

  2. People v. Carolyn J.S. (In re Carolyn J.S.)

    2024 Ill. App. 3d 220250 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 24 Respondent cites to Koplin v. Hinsdale Hosp., 207 Ill.App.3d 219 (1990) and Gray v.Plano, 141 Ill.App.3d 575 (1986), to support her argument that the circuit court violated her right to due process by permitting the State to make its mid-hearing amendment. In Koplin, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to conform with the proofs, after he and the defendant rested their respective cases during a preliminary injunction hearing.

  3. Harris v. Johnson

    218 Ill. App. 3d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 9 times

    To state a cause of action properly, a complaint must contain facts and not merely conclusions. ( Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, 578.) Although pleadings are to be construed liberally with the aim of doing substantial justice between the parties, a plaintiff is not relieved from the duty of including sufficient factual averments in his complaint.

  4. La Salle National Trust, N.A. v. Village of Mettawa

    249 Ill. App. 3d 550 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming the disconnection of an 11-tract territory under section 7-3-6

    Finally, the case defendants cite for the principle that a reversal may be warranted, even after a trial, when a trial court errs in denying a motion to dismiss a pleading is distinguishable. In that case, Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, not only was the plaintiff's pleading factually insufficient, but plaintiff there introduced evidence at trial which varied from the allegations of the pleadings and introduced new theories into the case at trial. ( Gray, 141 Ill. App.3d at 579-80.)

  5. Romano v. Bittner

    510 N.E.2d 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that the failure to provide appropriate traffic controls or warnings was at least partially responsible for the resulting confusion of two drivers as to which of them had the right-of-way and therefore upholding the jury's conclusion that it was a proximate cause of the injury, rather than merely a condition

    Accordingly, we give no consideration to Shodeen's contention in this regard. • 2, 3 Next, relying on Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, and Burnett v. Donath (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 131, Shodeen contends Romano's second amended complaint contains conclusions only, as opposed to facts; thus, Romano has failed to state a cause of action and dismissal of the complaint was required. For purposes of review, a motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts ( Mack v. Plaza DeWitt Ltd. Partnership (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 343, 349), and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the opponent ( Bagel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1985), 132 Ill. App.3d 82); the court ignores conclusions of law or conclusions of fact unsupported by allegations of specific facts upon which such conclusions rest ( Doyle v. Shlensky (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 807). Factual conclusions based on previously alleged facts, however, may be considered in determining whether a proper factual basis for a cause of action is alleged.

  6. Assoc. Inv. Corp. v. Laidlaw Waste Sys

    503 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-616(c).) However, in Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, this court, quoting from Blazina v. Blazina (1976), 42 Ill. App.3d 159, 165, stated: "`Once a trial has begun * * * an amendment should not ordinarily be permitted to set up matters of which the pleader had full knowledge at the time of interposing the original pleading and no excuse is presented for not putting its substance in the original pleading.

  7. Black v. Peoria Marine Construction Co.

    513 N.E.2d 622 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    A complaint which alleges that a defendant was negligent in certain respects, but which omits supporting factual averments, fails to state a cause of action because a complaint must contain facts and not merely conclusions. Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, 490 N.E.2d 1020. • 5 A review of count VII of plaintiff's amended complaint reveals that plaintiff failed to allege facts to support the existence of any duty which arose as a result of any contractual relationship between Peoria Marine and N.E. Finch or Peoria Barge, the employer of the plaintiff.

  8. Campbell v. Haiges

    504 N.E.2d 200 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing that parents are under no duty to supervise their children at all times and are not negligent in failing to do so absent "specific facts showing a special need for caution"

    Although pleadings are to be liberally construed, this rule does not relieve a plaintiff of the duty to include substantial factual allegations in his complaint. ( Gray v. City of Plano (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 575, 578, 490 N.E.2d 1020.) No such substantial factual allegations appear in the complaint in this case. Plaintiff further argues that one who voluntarily undertakes to protect a class of persons has the duty to do so nonnegligently. ( Cross v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services (1980), 82 Ill.2d 313, 319-20, 412 N.E.2d 472.) It is obvious, however, that the Haiges' act of hiring a baby-sitter was for the purpose of watching their son while the parents were at work, not for the purpose of protecting third persons from the son's violent attacks.