Makindu v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n

20 Citing cases

  1. Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 190334 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 15 times

    For each element, "the plaintiff must raise a ‘fair question’ that each of the elements is satisfied." Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n , 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 31, 396 Ill.Dec. 529, 40 N.E.3d 182. However, "[m]ere opinion, conclusion, or belief will not suffice."

  2. Hutsonville Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n

    2021 Ill. App. 5th 210308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    "However, where the trial court does not make any factual findings and rules on a question of law, the appellate court's review is de novo." Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 32; see also Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill.2d 52, 63 (2006). Here, no factual findings were provided by the trial court.

  3. Hutsonville Cusd No. 1 v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n

    2021 Ill. App. 5th 210308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    "However, where the trial court does not make any factual findings and rules on a question of law, the appellate court's review is de novo." Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 32; see also Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C, 225 Ill.2d 52, 63 (2006). Here, no factual findings were provided by the trial court.

  4. JL Props. Grp. B v. Pritzker

    2021 Ill. App. 3d 200305 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    Accordingly, before granting a preliminary injunction, the circuit court must " 'balance the hardships and consider the public interests involved.' " Guns Save Life, Inc., 2019 IL App (4th) 190334, ¶ 68 (quoting Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 31). The court must weigh the benefits of granting the injunction against the possible injury to the opposing party from the injunction.

  5. Accuracy Firearms LLC v. Pritzker

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 230035 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 20 Once the plaintiff establishes a fair question that his or her rights were violated, the plaintiff has also established a fair question that he or she would likely prevail on his claim. Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 38. "The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is not to determine controverted rights or decide the merits of the case, but to prevent a threatened wrong or continuing injury and preserve the status quo with the least injury to the parties concerned."

  6. Minetz v. Bd. of Educ. of Paxton-Buckley-Loda Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 10

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 190771 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    For each element, "the plaintiff must raise a 'fair question' that each of the elements is satisfied." Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 31, 40 N.E.3d 182. However, "[m]ere opinion, conclusion, or belief will not suffice."

  7. Santella v. Kolton

    2017 Ill. App. 103711 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 32. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. World Painting Co., LLC v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869, ¶ 12. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on review.

  8. Szymakowski v. Utah High Sch. Activities Ass'n

    2:24-cv-00751-RJS (D. Utah Oct. 17, 2024)

    In any event, Mr. Szymakowski contests the constitutionality of the Student Visa Eligibility Rule; in such instances, the status quo is generally the state of affairs prior to enactment of the rule at issue. See Free the Nipple-Fort Collins, 916 F.3d at 798 n.3 (opining that the status quo was the state of affairs “existing before Fort Collins enacted the challenged public-nudity ordinance”); Makindu v. Ill. High School Ass'n, 40 N.E.3d 182, 193 (Ill.App.Ct. 2015) (explaining that “to return the parties to where they would have been without the controversy, they must be returned to where they were before the bylaw was enacted”).

  9. Allen v. The Bd. of Educ. of N. Mac Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 34

    2022 Ill. App. 4th 220307 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    "If these elements are met, then the court must balance the hardships and consider the public interests involved." Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass 'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 31, 40 N.E.3d 182. ¶ 16 Ordinarily, a circuit court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a TRO will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion.

  10. In re Marriage of Nnena Ugwu-Uche

    2019 Ill. App. 190448 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 32. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. World Painting Co., LLC v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869, ¶ 12. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on review.