rule that common law fraud claims under Illinois law must be proved by clear and convincing evidence); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (confirming that a court “must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden” in determining whether a genuine issue of fact has been raised sufficient to withstand summary judgment). Lee’s affidavit does not state that he did not intend to fulfill a promise to pay; it affirmatively states that he did intend to follow through with the commissions in the letter, but that he believed the source funds for the payments would be included within the fee sharing request made by AAA. See R.105-1, Ex.5 at 7; cf. Price v. Highland Cmty. Bank, 722 F.Supp. 454, 460 (N.D.Ill.1989), aff’d, 932 F.2d 601 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Because ABS has failed to raise a genuine
holding that an uncontroverted psr alone can provide clear and convincing evidence to support a sentence enhancement holding that an admission from the promisor that he lacked intent to form a contract by his promise could provide clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff on a promissory fraud claim holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence recognizing promissory estop pel theory may be invoked when promisee obtains promise from promisor that is less than a legally sufficient contract holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence