cause for an evidentiary hearing in Illinois

1997People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989).

1997People v. Caballero, 126 Ill.2d 248 , 128 Ill.

2011Id. ¶ 14 III.

2011Id. ¶ 14 III.

2008The court noted that no evidence had been presented regarding the taxing bodies' need for accumulations in the challenged funds; therefore, the court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing to allow the taxing bodies "the opportunity to present evidence in support of their claim that the accumulations in the challenged funds are justified and not an abuse of discretion." Toynton, 285 Ill.

2008The court noted that no evidence had been presented regarding the taxing bodies’ need for accumulations in the challenged funds; therefore, the court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing to allow the taxing bodies “the opportunity to present evidence in support of their claim that the accumulations in the challenged funds are justified and not an abuse of discretion.” Toynton, 285 Ill.

2002People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998).

2002People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366 , 233 Ill.Dec. 789 , 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998).

2002JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority correctly reverses in part the judgment of the circuit court and remands this cause for an evidentiary hearing in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 153 L.

2002JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority correctly reverses in part the judgment of the circuit court and remands this cause for an evidentiary hearing in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 153 L.

2001People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (1995).

2001People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (1995).

1992This court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence for murder, remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L.

1992This court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence for murder, remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L.

1989In Ostendorf, the appellate court reversed and remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of fraudulent concealment and whether International Harvester had given false answers to the interrogatories. ( Ostendorf, 88 Ill.

1982It expressed no opinion on the merits. ( 88 Ill.

2025BACKGROUND ¶4 Our prior decision in Landwer, 2024 IL App (3d) 220077 , includes a detailed factual background that need not be repeated here.

2020App. 3d at 116 (Where the postconviction petition “raise[d] unanswered questions of fact as to whether the prosecution had leverage over [a witness] justifying defendant’s allegation that [the witness] had a possible bias or motive to fabricate due to the pending *** charge,” those “questions can only be answered by matters outside the record, thereby demonstrating the need for an evidentiary hearing.”). ¶ 28 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing. ¶ 29 Reversed and remanded. - 11 - No. 1-17-1964 No. 1-17-1964 Cit

2016The defendant, upon timely request, shall be allowed to file an amended posttrial motion, and the hearing on the posttrial motions shall proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion. ¶ 43 Orders vacated; remanded with directions. 21 2016 IL App (5th) 130589 NO. 5-13-0589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Jasper County. ) v. ) No. 13-CF-8 ) MICHAEL A. SHAMHART, ) Honorable ) S. Gene Schwarm, Defendant-A

2013People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 293 (2002).

1997The Nix court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing because of the attorney’s alleged "incomplete or inaccurate information.” Nix, 150 Ill.

1997People v. Lester, 261 Ill.

1992App. 3d at 99 .) In remanding the cause for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, the appellate court held that “[t]he State should be required to fulfill its part of the agreement” because “a contrary holding would constitute judicial approval of the government violating its agreement, a reprehensible aberration.” (Schmitt, 173 Ill.

1992The State requests that we vacate the dismissal and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing, citing People v. Starks (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 441, 453 .

1992There, the court recognized “that the failure of an attorney to remit his state bar dues is strong evidence that such attorney is no longer sufficiently interested in the practice of law to adequately defend his client’s interest.” (Brewer, 88 Mich. App. at 762 , 279 N.W.2d at 309 .) Therefore, the court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s unsupported allegation was in fact true, and if so, to determine its effect upon the defendant’s conviction.

1992There, the court recognized “that the failure of an attorney to remit his state bar dues is strong evidence that such attorney is no longer sufficiently interested in the practice of law to adequately defend his client’s interest.” (Brewer, 88 Mich. App. at 762 , 279 N.W.2d at 309 .) Therefore, the court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s unsupported allegation was in fact true, and if so, to determine its effect upon the defendant’s conviction.

1991To support this theory, defendant cites United States v. Long (8th Cir. 1988), 857 F.2d 436 .

1991Ed. 2d 426 , 433 n.5, 98 S. Ct. 1173 , 1178 n.5; see also People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 , 382 N.E.2d 227 .) This court therefore remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

1989App.3d 316 .) The supreme court granted leave to appeal and reiterated that, "A motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts. * * * We have repeatedly held that a motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could ever be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover." 89 Ill.2d at 280 .

1988Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. (1986), 149 Ill.

1988The appellate court therefore remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 329 (107 Ill. 2d R. 329) to resolve the conflict. 153 Ill.

1986Apart from his reliance on Lee, plaintiff, while acknowledging the long-standing rule that a jurisdictional or special limitation in a purely statutory cause of action operates as a limitation on the liability itself (Demchuk v. Duplancich (1982), 99 Ill. 2d 1, 6 ; Lowrey v. Malkowski (1960), 20 Ill. 2d 280, 283-84 ; Wilson v. Tromly (1949), 404 Ill. 307, 310 ), maintains that the Illinois Supreme Court “has been modernizing its views of jurisdictional limitation periods to permit tolling in appropriate circumstances.” Important considerations of public policy, he argues, have been regarded by