Ryan v. Yarbrough

18 Citing cases

  1. Bray v. The City of Chicago

    2022 Ill. App. 201214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act provides there is a right of contribution among joint tortfeasors who are potentially liable to the injured party, even though judgment has not yet been entered against any or all of them. 740 ILCS 100/2(a) (West 2016); Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 345 (2005). A well-pleaded contribution claim must allege facts that establish the counterdefendant is liable in tort to the original plaintiff.

  2. Jensen v. Chaddock

    No. 18-cv-3087 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 17, 2018)

    Plaintiff alleges that a custodial relationship existed between Defendant and KJ that gave rise to Defendant's duty to adequately supervise, protect, and provide a safe environment for KJ. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant's duty to KJ and Defendant's custodial relationship with the other residents created Defendant's duty to control other residents to prevent them from harming KJ or exposing KJ to an unreasonable risk of harm. Id. ¶¶ 30, 35, 40. These allegations concerning the relationship between Defendant and its residents allow the Court to infer that Defendant owed a duty of care to KJ. See Ryan v. Yarbrough, 823 N.E.2d 259, 262 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (a child's caretaker has a duty to protect the child from harm). The Complaint states that Defendant breached these duties in several ways: (1) failing to adequately monitor residents at night; (2) failing to take reasonable precautions to secure the cottage exits and to otherwise prevent residents from walking off campus at night; (3) failing to supervise residents who were known to leave the campus and take vulnerable residents like KJ with them; and (4) failing to provide a reasonably safe environment free from threat of being taken off campus by other residents.

  3. T.K. v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Am.

    Case No. 16-cv-03056 (C.D. Ill. Jun. 6, 2017)

    A child's caretaker has a duty to protect the child from harm. Ryan v. Yarbrough, 823 N.E.2d 259, 262 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be decided by the Court.

  4. People v. Carroll

    2023 Ill. App. 230370 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 346 (2005).

  5. McClinton-El v. City of Chicago

    2023 Ill. App. 220974 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    De novo means we review the motion anew-as if no decision had been rendered previously-and perform the same analysis that a trial court would perform. Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 346 (2005); Barnett v. Apple, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 220187, ¶ 32.

  6. Blagden v. McMillin

    225 N.E.3d 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    " ‘The term "denovo" means that the court reviews the matter anew—the same as if the case had not been heard before and as if no decision had been rendered previously.’ " Freeburg Community Consolidated School District No. 70 v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 IL App (5th) 190098, ¶ 80, 451 Ill. Dec. 563, 183 N.E.3d 1020 (quoting Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill. App. 3d 342, 346, 291 Ill.Dec. 249, 823 N.E.2d 259 (2005)). "Where, as here, the issues are all reviewed de novo, ‘"we perform the same analysis a trial court would perform and give no deference to the judge’s conclusions or specific rationale."’" Id. (quoting Hassebrock v. Ceja Corp., 2015 IL App (5th) 140037, ¶ 79, 390 Ill.Dec. 480, 29 N.E.3d 412, quoting Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Iles, 2013 IL App (5th) 120485, ¶ 19), 372 Ill.Dec. 856, 992 N.E.2d 1257.

  7. Blagden v. McMillin

    2023 Ill. App. 4th 220238 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    'The term "de novo" means that the court reviews the matter anew-the same as if the case had not been heard before and as if no decision had been rendered previously.'" Freeburg Community Consolidated School District No. 70 v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 IL App (5th) 190098, ¶ 80 (quoting Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 346 (2005)). "Where, as here, the issues are all reviewed de novo,' "we perform the same analysis a trial court would perform and give no deference to the judge's conclusions or specific rationale."

  8. Kishwaukee Auto Corral, Inc. v. The Dep't of Revenue

    2021 Ill. App. 200236 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Alternatively, Kishwaukee argues that if ROTA does not permit Kishwaukee to claim such a refund, the statute's application in this case violates the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, § 2) because it creates an arbitrary distinction between accrual basis taxpayers (who can claim such refunds) and cash basis taxpayers (who cannot). ¶ 16 We review an administrative agency's grant of summary judgment de novo (Prairie Rivers Network v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 2016 IL App (1st) 150971, ¶ 23), meaning that we "review[ ] the matter anew-the same as if the case had not been heard before and as if no decision had been rendered previously." Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 346 (2005). The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the legislators' intent, which is best indicated by the plain language of the statute.

  9. Claffey v. Huntley

    2021 Ill. App. 191938 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois, 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 37. De novo review means we consider these motions anew and conduct the same inquiry the trial court would. Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill.App.3d 342, 346 (2005); Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill.App.3d 564, 578 (2011). The standard for a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. is high and not appropriate if" 'reasonable minds might differ as to inferences or conclusions to be drawn from the facts presented.'"

  10. Freeburg Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 70 v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.

    2021 IL App (5th) 190098 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "The term 'de novo' means that the court reviews the matter anew—the same as if the case had not been heard before and as if no decision had been rendered previously." Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill. App. 3d 342, 346 (2005). Thus, if we find the circuit court's determination erroneous as to a question of law, we may substitute our determination for that of the circuit court.