Tooley v. Industrial Comm'n

4 Citing cases

  1. Larson v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2023 Ill. App. 4th 220522 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    It can become a question of law only where there is no conflict in the evidence and but one conclusion can reasonably be drawn therefrom. Id.; Tooley v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 Ill.App.3d 1054, 1056 (1992). Even in cases where the facts are undisputed, this court must apply the manifest-weight standard if more than one reasonable inference might be drawn from the facts.

  2. Brown-Wright v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist. 189

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 180311 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ΒΆ 33 The plaintiff alleged a meeting of the minds expressed by the District's disseminated, written policy, offering severance pay credit to administrators for unused sick leave, and the plaintiff's acceptance of the policy, by continuing to work for the District. See Tooley v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 Ill. App. 3d 1054, 1056 (1992) (contractual relationship is a product of a meeting of minds expressed by some offer on the part of one and an acceptance on the part of the other). As noted above, however, the plaintiff failed to put forth evidence that she continued to work for the District after learning of a policy to pay accumulated sick leave as severance pay to administrators based on noncontinuous but cumulative years of service.

  3. Brown-Wright v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist. 189

    2016 Ill. App. 5th 150148 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that an employee sufficiently pleaded a promissory estoppel claim by alleging that her employer's written policies "contained ... specific and quantifiable" information concerning severance pay "using language that was clear and mandatory"

    The plaintiff alleged a meeting of the minds expressed by the District's disseminated, written policy, offering severance pay credit to administrators for unused sick leave, and the plaintiff's acceptance of the policy, by continuing to work for the District. See Tooley v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 Ill. App. 3d 1054, 1056 (1992) (contractual relationship is a product of a meeting of minds expressed by some offer on the part of one and an acceptance on the part of the other). The plaintiff alleged actions by both parties showing they mutually assented to the agreement.

  4. Pearson v. Industrial Commission

    318 Ill. App. 3d 932 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 11 times

    When, however, there is no conflict in the evidence and but one conclusion can reasonably be drawn therefrom, the existence of an employer/employee relationship can be decided as a question of law. Tooley v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 Ill. App.3d 1054, 1056, 603 N.E.2d 145 (1992) Section 1(b)(2) of the Act defines an employee as "[e]very person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written * * *."