The court reversed the appellate court's judgment and rendered judgment for the insurer.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which had awarded summary judgment to petitioner insurers on respondent insureds' claim for coverage under a general liability insurance policy. The court found that the pollution exclusion was unambiguous, and that no further discovery was needed to interpret the policy.

The court affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded for a determination of damages.

The court vacated the district court's order granting class certifications in each of the six cases and remanded for further proceedings.

The appellate court reversed the decision of the district court, finding that one of the challenged ordinances violated RLUIPA, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' securities fraud claims was affirmed.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and disapproved In Re Ramirez to the extent that it conflicted with the court's opinion.

The court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court's dismissal as to all claims against one management company, the interference with contract claim against the other management company, and the unjust enrichment claim against the trustee. The court affirmed the appellate court's judgment as to the negligent misrepresentation claims against one management company and the trustee, and remanded...

The district court's judgment was affirmed.

The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case remanded for a trial on whether, and in what amount, to award punitive damages.

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The court reversed the order and the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the demurrers and to allow defendants a reasonable time within which to answer. As to the remaining defendants, the judgment was affirmed. Plaintiff should recover his costs on appeal from defendants, and the other defendants shall recover their costs on appeal from plaintiff.

The court affirmed, holding that, under the standard for determining whether a derivative complaint stated a demand futility claim, the shareholders failed to create a reasonable doubt either of director disinterest or that the transaction was other than a product of the directors' valid exercise of business judgment.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the insured's action against the insurer for failing to defend the insured in an action for assault and battery. The court instructed the trial court to take evidence solely on the issue of damages including the amount of the judgment against the insured and the costs, expenses, and attorney fees incurred by the insured in defending the suit.

The court affirmed a judgment by the court of appeals that plaintiff former employee brought an actionable claim against defendant former employer for tortious discharge in contravention of public policy. Defendant retaliated against plaintiff for truthfully supporting a coworker's sexual harassment claim. The court held that the exclusive remedy provisions of worker's compensation did not apply to defendant's...

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The court affirmed the award of compensatory damages against defendant insurer because the failure to investigate plaintiff insured's claim constituted a breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. An award of punitive damages was warranted by record, but the award made was reversed because it was excessive.

The denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity of claims 1-4 for obviousness was reversed.

The court affirmed the judgment.

The court affirmed with each party to bear its own costs.

The court held that both the Registration Law and the Community Notification Law were constitutional, but that the prosecutor's decision to provide community notification, which included the manner of notification, was subject to judicial review before such notification was given, and that such review was constitutionally required.

The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the matter was remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the superior court. A plaintiff seeking to recover for a defendant's alleged interference with economic relations must plead and prove that defendant engaged in wrongful conduct. As such, the superior court judge did not err in modifying the jury instruction to impose such a requirement.

The finding of infringement was affirmed in part and reversed in part, the order granting the permanent injunction was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The court reversed the first judgment, finding that the allegations in complaint and affidavit failed to set forth a relationship sufficiently intimate to be equated with privity; and affirmed second judgment, holding that defendant specifically knew the reports would be relied upon by plaintiff for a particular purpose.

The court reversed the intermediate court's order and remanded for dismissal of all of vehicle owners' claims except the claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on statements made by manufacturer to a car magazine.