Gakuba v. Kurtz (2015)

Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (a reviewing court will not become the advocate for, as well as the judge of, the argument the appellant seeks to make). ¶ 13 B.

See Trilisky v. City of Chicago, 2019 IL App (1st) 182189, ¶ 54 (“The failure to elaborate on an argument, cite persuasive authority, or present a well-reasoned theory violates Rule 341(h)(7) and results in forfeiture of the argument.”); Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (the failure to cite relevant authority results in forfeiture of the argument); Lewis v. Heartland Food Corp., 2014 IL App (1st) 123303, ¶¶ 5-6 (arguments that fail to comply with Rule 341(h)(7)…

Maron has forfeited its argument by failing to adequately support it with argument and with relevant authority Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (quoting Skidis v. Industrial Comm’n, 309 Ill.

Id.; Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 (presumption that the court acted properly in absence of a complete record applies “especially” when standard of review is abuse of discretion).

Furthermore, plaintiff has forfeited this issue by failing to cite any relevant authority to support his speculation that defendants may argue that res judicata bars plaintiff’s chancery case (see Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (a party’s failure to cite relevant authority forfeits his argument); see also In re H.B., 2022 IL App (2d) 210404, ¶ 41 (a party forfeits an argument by failing to adequately develop it)), and this court does not render advisory opini…

Jan. 1, 2016) (argument in a brief must contain “citation of the authorities *** relied on”); Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (argument unsupported by authority was forfeited). ¶ 24 Forfeiture aside, there is no indication that the order compelling reimbursement was summarily granted or that Mary was not allowed to present relevant evidence.

Oct. 1, 2020) (requiring the appellant’s brief to contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on); People v. Soskin, 2021 IL App (2d) 191017, ¶ 39 (holding that the failure to comply with rules requiring that a party raise arguments and provide citation to legal authority or the record results in forfeiture); Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (holding that party forfeited …

May 25, 2018) provides that an appellate brief must include a section of “[a]rgument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” “ ‘A failure to cite relevant authority violates Rule 341 and can cause a party to forfeit consideration of the issue.’ ” Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (quoting Kic v. Bianucci, 2011 IL App (1st) 100622, ¶ 23 ). “[T]his cour…

Indeed, plaintiff makes no argument, other than simply referring to the applicable statute of limitations as “applicable 5[-]year limitations for statute of fraud.” See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (finding that the defendant forfeited argument unsupported by any cogent analysis or citation to relevant authority). ¶ 26 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Virginia’s motion to dismiss the …

Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (arguments not supported by relevant authority are forfeited).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 . ¶ 30 As stated, Masood failed to include a report of proceedings from the hearing on his motion to stay or an acceptable substitute.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 , 39 N.E.3d 589 . “[A]n appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error, and in the absence of such a record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the circuit court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 , 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz , 2015 IL App (2d) 140252 , ¶ 19, 396 Ill.Dec. 40 , 39 N.E.3d 589 . ¶ 88 B.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz , 2015 IL App (2d) 140252 , ¶ 19, 396 Ill.Dec. 40 , 39 N.E.3d 589 (failure to cite relevant authority results in forfeiture of the argument, as it is not the role of the court to "research the issues on the appellant's behalf"). ¶ 63 For all of these reasons, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of John with respect to the trusts. ¶ 64 B.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (appellant forfeited issue by failing to cite legal authority).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (stating the failure to cite authority in support of a contention results in forfeiture).

“A failure to cite relevant authority violates Rule 341 and can cause a party to forfeit consideration of the issue.” Kic v. Biannuci, 2011 IL App (1st) 100622, ¶ 23 ; see also Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (“Where an appellant has failed to support his or her arguments with citations to authority, this court will not research the issues on the appellant’s behalf.”). ¶ 134 C.

Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92 ; see also Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252 , ¶ 22 20 No. 1-24-1756 (presumption that the court acted properly in the absence of a complete record applies “especially” when the standard of review is abuse of discretion). ¶ 60 Ultimately, we find no compelling reason in this case to excuse or overlook the numerous violations of Rules 341 and 342, and the deficiencies in the record presented by Jaskula.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 ; see also Lewis v. Heartland Food Corp., 2014 IL App (1st) 123303, ¶¶ 5-6 (arguments that fail to comply with Rule 341(h)(7) are forfeited).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (a party’s failure to cite relevant authority forfeits his argument).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (a party’s failure to cite relevant authority forfeits his argument).

See Gakuba, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 . ¶ 29 III.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 (presumption that the court acted properly in absence of a complete record applies “especially” when standard of review is abuse of discretion). ¶ 37 Next, defendant asserts that the circuit court erred in “failing to require [BOA] to submit an amended complaint” requesting the new reduced amount, which he maintains was required under 735 ILCS 5/2-616 (West 2022).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (appellant forfeited issue by failing to cite legal authority). ¶ 30 CONCLUSION ¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, we find that the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter the orders directing issuance of tax deeds to the Village.

See id.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (argument is forfeited where proponent fails to cite relevant authority). ¶ 239 D.

See, e.g., Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 .

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (observing that the failure to cite relevant legal authority results in forfeiture of the argument).

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 (the presumption that the court acted properly in the absence of a complete record applies “especially” when the standard of review is abuse of discretion). ¶ 51 We also reject Carbide’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to rule on her request for contribution from respondent under the DVA.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 . ¶ 88 B.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 22 (presumption that the court acted properly in absence of a complete record applies “especially” when standard of review is abuse of discretion). ¶ 18 The record in this case does not include a transcript or acceptable substitute of the March 7, 2019, hearing in which the court considered the intervenors’ petition to intervene.

See Gakuba v. Kurtz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140252, ¶ 19 (failure to cite relevant authority results in forfeiture of the argument, as it is not the role of the court to “research the issues on the appellant’s behalf”). - 14 - ¶ 63 For all of these reasons, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of John with respect to the trusts. ¶ 64 B.