Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924
1975
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rice v. White
"Generally, the law[-]of[-]the[-]case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case." Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541, 552 , 861 N.E.2d 633, 642 , (2006), citing People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381, 395 , 794 N.E.238, 247 (2002). "'[T]he determination of a question of law by the [a]ppellate [c]ourt on the first appeal may, as a general rule, be binding upon it on the second appeal.'" Krautsack, 223 Ill. 2d at 552 , 861 N.E.2d at 642 , quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection, 223 Ill. 518, 520 , 79 N.E. 160, 161 (1906). - 24 - Illinois recog…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rice v. White
“Generally, the law[-]of[-]the[-]case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.” Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541, 552 , 861 N.E.2d 633, 642 , (2006), citing People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381, 395 , 794 N.E.2d 238, 247 (2002). “ ‘[T]he determination of a question of law by the [a]ppellate [c]ourt on the first appeal may, as a general rule, be binding upon it on the second appeal.’ ” Krautsack, 223 Ill. 2d at 552 , 861 N.E.2d at 642 , quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection, 223 Ill. 518, 520 , 79 N.E. 160, 161 (1906).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Melka
E.g., Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection, 223 Ill. 518, 520 , 79 N.E. 160, 161 (1906); Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co., 164 Ill.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Melka
E.g. , Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge, Order of Mutual Protection , 223 Ill. 518, 520 , 79 N.E. 160, 161 (1906); Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. , 164 Ill.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry H. Gage
v.
The People ex rel. John J. Hanberg, County Treasurer
v.
The People ex rel. John J. Hanberg, County Treasurer
F. W. Becker, for plaintiff in .error., William M. Pindell, (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, and Robert Redfield, of counsel,) for defendant in error.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Per Curiam :
These records present the same questions that were raised and considered in Gage v. People ex rel. (ante, p. 410,) and none other. On the authority of the judgment entered in that case, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case, the judgment in each of these cases is affirmed.
T , Judgments affirmed.
Mr. Justice Carter took no part in the decision of this case.