Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg

16 Citing cases

  1. Surestaff, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.

    2019 Ill. App. 172678 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    The court abuses its discretion when its decision is so arbitrary or unreasonable that "no reasonable person would take the view [it] adopted." Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 339 (2010). Source One takes issue with the exclusion of four exhibits.

  2. 209 N. Walnut, L.L.C. v. Origin Fire Prot., Inc.

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 120831 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    The decision to admit or exclude evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Law Offices of Colleen M. McLaughlin v. First Star Financial Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 101849, ¶ 28. An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 339 (2010). Moreover, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to the evidence, or the inferences to be drawn therefrom (Inre D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 (2002)), and we must draw from the evidence all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment (H&H Press, Inc. v. Axelrod, 265 Ill. App. 3d 670, 679 (1994)). ¶ 21 Plaintiffs contend that the trial court's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, first challenging the trial courts' finding that the parties agreed upon the extra work that defendant was to perform.

  3. Oak Terrace Condos. v. Durr

    2024 Ill. App. 232090 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    Further, "[t]he fact that a party appears pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules for practice before this court." Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 (citing Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill.App.3d 333, 335 (2010)). Durr's failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 341 creates a justifiable basis for the striking of his brief or the dismissal of his appeal.

  4. In re Marriage of Hess

    2022 Ill. App. 5th 170112 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill.App.3d 333, 335 (2010). Here, petitioner's appellate brief contains no legal argument, no citation to record, and no citation to authority.

  5. Kareemah Isr. Clark & Kavon Grant v. Health Care Serv. Corp.

    2022 Ill. App. 211356 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Although the appellants in this case are acting pro se, compliance with Rule 341 is mandatory, and "[t]he fact that a party appears pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules for practice before this court." Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 (citing Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill.App.3d 333, 335 (2010)).

  6. Glassmeyer v. Caldwell

    2022 Ill. App. 5th 200397 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    The fact that a party is pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme Court rules for practice before this court. Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill.App.3d 333, 335 (2010).

  7. McIntyre v. Balagani

    2019 Ill. App. 3d 140543 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 99. ¶ 96 Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding the testimony at issue to be hearsay, and, therefore, abused its discretion by excluding the testimony on hearsay grounds. See Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 339 (2010) ("A trial court abuses its discretion *** where its ruling rests on an error of law"). However, even when an abuse of discretion has occurred, we will not reverse the trial court's judgment on an evidentiary issue unless "the record indicates the existence of substantial prejudice affecting the outcome of the trial."

  8. McIntyre v. Balagani

    2019 Ill. App. 3d 140543 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 99. ¶ 94 Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding the testimony at issue to be hearsay, and, therefore, abused its discretion by excluding the testimony on hearsay grounds. See Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 339 (2010) ("A trial court abuses its discretion *** where its ruling rests on an error of law"). However, even when an abuse of discretion has occurred, we will not reverse the trial court's judgment on an evidentiary issue unless "the record indicates the existence of substantial prejudice affecting the outcome of the trial."

  9. PMT NPL Fin. 2015-1 v. Varan

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 170676 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    In re County Collector, 2017 IL App (2d) 160483, ¶ 31. "A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court, or where its ruling rests on an error of law." [Citations omitted.] Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d 333, 339 (2010).¶ 24 Intervenors' argument that they should have been allowed to intervene is based upon an assertion of ownership of the property.

  10. Urban P'ship Bank v. Chi. Title Land Trust Co.

    2017 Ill. App. 162086 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 17 times

    Waters v. City of Chicago, 95 Ill. App. 3d 919, 923, 51 Ill.Dec. 185, 420 N.E.2d 599 (1981). We note additionally that a trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable ( Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill. App. 3d, 333, 339, 342 Ill.Dec. 485, 932 N.E.2d 612 (2010) ), or where its ruling rests on an error of law ( CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Johnson 2013 IL App (2d) 120719, ¶ 18, 373 Ill.Dec. 257, 993 N.E.2d 563). That said, appellant nevertheless maintains, without citation to authority, that because there was no evidentiary hearing on her motion to intervene, the issues presented on appeal merit our review de novo. ¶ 16 We disagree.