Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
30 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Strohl v. MACON CTY. ZONING BD. OF APPEALSgreen2 sentences2020District 229 objected and filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the court should reverse the Board’s decision rather than remand the case because, under Strohl v. Macon County Zoning Board of Appeals, 411 Ill. 559, 565 (1952), the Board’s failure to keep a record of the proceedings on the petition for rehearing constitutes a reversal of its decision. 2019District 229 objected and filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the court should reverse the Board’s decision rather than remand the case because, under Strohl v. Macon County Zoning Board of Appeals, 411 Ill. 559, 565 (1952), the Board’s failure to keep a record of the proceedings on the petition for 5 rehearing constitutes a reversal of its decision. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences2011Id. at 189 , 464 N.E.2d at 1049 ; see also People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-79 , 797 N.E.2d 631, 637-38 (2003) (discussing and applying Krankel and the rules derived therefrom). 2011Id. at 189 , 464 N.E.2d at 1049 ; see also People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-79 , 797 N.E.2d 631, 637-38 (2003) (discussing and applying Krankel and the rules derived therefrom). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Derragreen2 sentences2003See People v. Berra, 92 Ill. 2003See People v. Derra, 92 Ill.App.3d 1106, 1112 , 48 Ill.Dec. 415 , 416 N.E.2d 688, 692 (1981) (defendant's waiver of counsel was ineffective without strict compliance with Rule 401). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Caballerogreen1 sentence2025See People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 269-70 (1989) (defining ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel). -8- No. 1-23-2386 ¶ 39 No Error ¶ 40 Stephens contends the insufficiency of the Krankel inquiry was evident from the record, and thus, direct appeal counsel erred by not raising it on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pendletongreen1 sentence2025People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). ¶ 38 In light of this, we accept Stephens’s factual allegations as true and determine: (i) whether direct appeal counsel was objectively unreasonable for not challenging the Krankel inquiry, and (ii) whether, absent direct appeal counsel’s error, a reasonable probability exists that we would have remanded the case for a new inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Dartgreen1 sentence2021See Lopez, 2018 IL App (1st) 170733, ¶ 59 ; Cruz, 2019 IL App (1st) 170915, ¶ 38 . ¶4 Armed with those decisions, the sheriff returned to the circuit court and asked for reconsideration of its order remanding the case for a new hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crossgreen2 sentences1998See People v. Cross, 289 Ill.App.3d 876, 891 , 225 Ill.Dec. 660 , 684 N.E.2d 135 (1997) (where the trial court remanded the case for a new hearing because the defendant was not aware that he had the burden of proof and would have put forth different evidence or trial strategy had he been so apprised). 1998See People v. Cross, 289 Ill.App.3d 876, 891 , 225 Ill.Dec. 660 , 684 N.E.2d 135 (1997) (where the trial court remanded the case for a new hearing because the defendant was not aware that he had the burden of proof and would have put forth different evidence or trial strategy had he been so apprised). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Krankel
green
2 sentences2020For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County but remand the case for a new hearing under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), with newly appointed counsel. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The State charged the defendant with delivery of a controlled substance. 2020For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County but remand the case for a new hearing under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), with newly appointed counsel. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The State charged the defendant with delivery of a controlled substance. | 11 | 1988–2020 |
In Re Estate of Rudder
neutral
2 sentences1983Finally, in In re Estate of Rudder (1979), 78 Ill. 1983Finally, in In re Estate of Rudder (1979), 78 Ill. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
green
2 sentences1979In Larkin Bank the court rejected the award of costs for confession of judgment based on a minimum fee schedule since fee schedules were held violative of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975), 421 U.S. 773 , 44 L. 1979In Larkin Bank the court rejected the award of costs for confession of judgment based on a minimum fee schedule since fee schedules were held violative of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975), 421 U.S. 773 , 44 L. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
In Re DT
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 366-67 . ¶ 35 The State argues, “In both cases, the judges’ repeated and unequivocal statements demonstrated that they measured the evidence by the wrong rule of decisions.” However, the State has misapprehended or disregarded the reasons why In re Urbasek and In re D.T. are so dissimilar to this case and why the standard of proof in those cases was incorrect. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
The PEOPLE EX REL. BORELLI v. Sain
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 125 On remand, at the new hearing, the respondents “refused to stipulate to [Borelli’s] testimony, or to consent to the introduction of the former stipulation, and were permitted to establish a prima facie case solely by the introduction of the Governor’s warrant into evidence.” Id. at 324 . 2024Id. ¶ 125 On remand, at the new hearing, the respondents “refused to stipulate to [Borelli’s] testimony, or to consent to the introduction of the former stipulation, and were permitted to establish a prima facie case solely by the introduction of the Governor’s warrant into evidence.” Id. at 324 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Sandoval
green
2 sentences2023CONCLUSION ¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County, granting defendant’s petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges, and we remand this case for a new hearing under section 2-118.1(b) of the Code. ¶ 28 Vacated and remanded with directions. - 10 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220155 People v. Sandoval, 2023 IL App (2d) 220155 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, No. 21-DT- 727; the Hon. 2023CONCLUSION ¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County, granting defendant’s petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges, and we remand this case for a new hearing under section 2-118.1(b) of the Code. ¶ 28 Vacated and remanded with directions. - 10 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220155 People v. Sandoval, 2023 IL App (2d) 220155 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, No. 21-DT- 727; the Hon. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cruz v. Dart
green
1 sentence2021See Lopez, 2018 IL App (1st) 170733, ¶ 59 ; Cruz, 2019 IL App (1st) 170915, ¶ 38 . ¶4 Armed with those decisions, the sheriff returned to the circuit court and asked for reconsideration of its order remanding the case for a new hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Interest of Ashley K.
green
1 sentence2012Ashley K., 212 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Roche v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Roche, 235 Ill. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wilson v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners
green
1 sentence1993(Wilson, 205 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Martinez v. Erickson
green
2 sentences1990The supreme court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action and remanded the case for a new hearing because “the circuit judge may not have accorded adequate weight to the plaintiff’s conduct in effecting service on the defendants following the refiling of his action[.]” Martinez, 127 Ill. 2d at 121 , 535 N.E.2d at 857 . 1990The supreme court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action and remanded the case for a new hearing because “the circuit judge may not have accorded adequate weight to the plaintiff’s conduct in effecting service on the defendants following the refiling of his action[.]” Martinez, 127 Ill. 2d at 121 , 535 N.E.2d at 857 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence1988Ed. 2d at 603 , 102 S. Ct. at 1391-92 .) Because the trial court’s finding of permanent neglect was made on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence standard, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new hearing to be conducted under a constitutionally proper standard. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.