shall conduct hearing in Illinois

2024Unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of sale were unconscionable, (iii) the sale was conducted fraudulently, or (iv) justice was otherwise not done, the court shall then enter an order confirming the sale.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b) (West 2022). ¶ 20 Section 15-1507(c) sets forth the requirements for the notice of the sale, and in subsection (c)(2), it provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(2) The notice of sale shall be published at least 3 consecutive calendar weeks (Sunday through Saturday), once

2021Id. ¶ 33 Section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law, which governs the confirmation of judicial sales, provides: “Upon motion and notice in accordance with court rules applicable to motions generally, which motion shall not be made prior to sale, the court shall conduct a hearing to confirm the sale.

2006The burden shall be on the public body to establish that its refusal to permit public inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of the FOIA and that the records fall within the exemption it has claimed. 5 ILCS 140/ll(f) (West 1998); see also Illinois Education Ass’n, 204 Ill. 2d at 464 ; Lieber, 176 Ill. 2d at 407-08 .

2006The burden shall be on the public body to establish that its refusal to permit public inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of the FOIA and that the records fall within the exemption it has claimed. 5 ILCS 140/11(f) (West 1998); see also Illinois Education Ass=n, 204 Ill. 2d at 464 ; Lieber, 176 Ill. 2d at 407 - 08.

1974If a jury is waived by the defendant, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the defendant’s competency.” In People v. Bender (1960), 20 Ill.2d 45, 48 , the supreme court considered the question of the procedure at a pretrial sanity (now competency) hearing and held: “The sanity hearing * * * is no empty formality, but is designed to preserve the constitutional right of a defendant not to be placed on trial while he is insane.

1973If a jury is waived by the defendant, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the defendant’s competency.” Further, section 104 — 3 of chapter 38 reads, in a portion essential to the case at hand: “(b) When reasonable grounds exist to believe that an incompetent is now competent the court * * * shaH conduct a hearing in accordance with this Article to determine the person’s present mental condition.” In People v. Bender (1960), 20 Ill.2d 45 , 169 N.E.2d 328 , the supreme court considered the question of the procedure at a pretrial sanity (now competency) hearing and said, at page 48: “T

2026Upon remand from this court, and consistent with section 5-130(c)(ii) of the Act, the State properly filed a petition for adult sentencing. ¶ 35 The statute then requires that “the court shall conduct a hearing to determine if the minor” should be subject to adult sentencing, and in making that determination, the court must consider “among other matters”: “(a) whether there is evidence that the offense was committed in an aggressive or premeditated manner; (b) the age of the minor; (c) the previous history of the minor; (d) whether there are facilities particularly available to the Juvenile Co

2024Rowe, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n.1. -2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U to case No. 21-CF-1857, “that case is not pretrial.” The court asked defense counsel “[u]nder what provision of the Act does the pretrial release apply to a post-sentence case?” Defense counsel responded: “Judge, under 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4, which is the violation, modification or revocation of probation statute, under subsection (3)(b) [sic], it indicates that the court shall conduct a hearing of the alleged violation.

2023“Unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of sale were unconscionable, (iii) the sale was conducted fraudulently, or (iv) justice was otherwise not done, the court shall then enter an order confirming the sale.” Id. ¶ 23 Furthermore, “[a]n accord and satisfaction is a contractual method of discharging a debt or claim.” Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127, 135 (2003).

2020MidFirst Bank v. Riley, 2018 Il App (1st) 171986, ¶ 37 ; Credit Union 1 v. Carrasco, 2018 Il App (1st) 172535, ¶ 22 . ¶8 Whether a trial court properly approved or confirmed a sale of foreclosed property is governed by section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Upon motion and notice in accordance with court rules applicable to motions generally, which motion shall not be made prior to sale, the court shall conduct a hearing to confirm the sale.

2020MidFirst Bank v. Riley, 2018 Il App (1st) 171986, ¶ 37 ; Credit Union 1 v. Carrasco, 2018 Il App (1st) 172535, ¶ 22 . ¶8 Whether a trial court properly approved or confirmed a sale of foreclosed property is governed by section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Upon motion and notice in accordance with court rules applicable to motions generally, which motion shall not be made prior to sale, the court shall conduct a hearing to confirm the sale.

2020On remand, the court shall conduct an inquiry into the allegations counsel was ineffective by doing one or more of the following: “(1) questioning the trial counsel, (2) questioning the defendant, and (3) relying on its own knowledge of the defense counsel’s performance in the trial.” Peacock, 359 Ill.

2020CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Lewis, 2014 IL App (1st) 131272, ¶ 31 . ¶ 14 Whether a trial court properly approved or confirmed a sale of foreclosed property is governed by section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Upon motion and notice in accordance with court rules applicable to motions generally, which motion shall not be made prior to sale, the court shall conduct a hearing to confirm the sale.

2019Iordanov, 2016 IL App (1st) 152656, ¶ 31 . ¶ 33 Section 15-1508(b) of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law provides, in pertinent part, that upon motion and notice, a court shall conduct a hearing and confirm the judicial sale unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of the sale were unconscionable, (iii) the sale was conducted fraudulently, or (iv) justice was otherwise not done. 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b). ¶ 34 Defendant first argues that the trial court should have disapproved the judicial sale, because plaintiff

2014Unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of sale were -5- 2014 IL App (2d) 131225 Specifically, “[u]nder the terms of the statute, a court *** has mandatory obligations to (a) conduct a hearing on confirmation of a judicial sale where a motion to confirm has been made and notice has been given, and, (b) following the hearing, to confirm the sale unless it finds that any of the four specified exceptions are present.” Id.

2014Unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of sale were -5- 2014 IL App (2d) 131225 Specifically, “[u]nder the terms of the statute, a court *** has mandatory obligations to (a) conduct a hearing on confirmation of a judicial sale where a motion to confirm has been made and notice has been given, and, (b) following the hearing, to confirm the sale unless it finds that any of the four specified exceptions are present.” Id.

1981App. 3d 778, 780 , 327 N.E.2d 69 .) However, if “it is not clear that a delay is attributable to the defendant, the court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the continuance to ascertain if the delay was occasioned by the defendant.” (People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 367 N.E.2d 1334 ; People v. Gooding (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 298, 301 , 335 N.E.2d 769 .) “When an issue of fact is presented by a motion to dismiss and the answer of the State the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the issues.” (Ill.

1981App. 3d 778, 780 , 327 N.E.2d 69 .) However, if “it is not clear that a delay is attributable to the defendant, the court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the continuance to ascertain if the delay was occasioned by the defendant.” (People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 367 N.E.2d 1334 ; People v. Gooding (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 298, 301 , 335 N.E.2d 769 .) “When an issue of fact is presented by a motion to dismiss and the answer of the State the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the issues.” (Ill.

1981App. 3d 778, 780 , 327 N.E.2d 69 .) However, if “it is not clear that a delay is attributable to the defendant, the court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the continuance to ascertain if the delay was occasioned by the defendant.” (People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 367 N.E.2d 1334 ; People v. Gooding (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 298, 301 , 335 N.E.2d 769 .) “When an issue of fact is presented by a motion to dismiss and the answer of the State the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the issues.” (Ill.

1981App. 3d 778, 780 , 327 N.E.2d 69 .) However, if “it is not clear that a delay is attributable to the defendant, the court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the continuance to ascertain if the delay was occasioned by the defendant.” (People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 367 N.E.2d 1334 ; People v. Gooding (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 298, 301 , 335 N.E.2d 769 .) “When an issue of fact is presented by a motion to dismiss and the answer of the State the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the issues.” (Ill.

1981App. 3d 778, 780 , 327 N.E.2d 69 .) However, if “it is not clear that a delay is attributable to the defendant, the court will inquire into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the continuance to ascertain if the delay was occasioned by the defendant.” (People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 423, 427 , 367 N.E.2d 1334 ; People v. Gooding (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 298, 301 , 335 N.E.2d 769 .) “When an issue of fact is presented by a motion to dismiss and the answer of the State the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the issues.” (Ill.

1980(People v. Robinson (1974), 18 Ill.

1979(People v. Thomas (1st Dist. 1978), 58 Ill.

1978People v. King (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 291 , 296 N.E.2d 731 ; People v. Ehrler (1969), 114 Ill.

1978People v. King (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 291 , 296 N.E.2d 731 ; People v. Ehrler (1969), 114 Ill.

1978Upon the filing of such motion the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the merits of the motion.” While it is true that a motion for substitution of judges is to receive liberal rather than strict construction (People v. Harston (1974), 23 Ill.

1978App. 3d 279 , 319 N.E.2d 69 ), a defendant must comply with the statutory provisions for the motion and must file it at the earliest practicable moment.

1978People v. King (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 291 , 296 N.E.2d 731 ; People v. Ehrler (1969), 114 Ill.

1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 .

1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 .

1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 .

1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 .

1974In a similar case, People v. West, 80 Ill.App.2d 59, 63 , the court said “* * * the trial court was justified in denying them.” While it is true that lack of compliance might have justified a refusal of the court to entertain the motion, the deficiencies in the motion were not raised below and the procedural requirements of the statute appear to have been waived by court and counsel alike.

1972Upon the filing of such motion the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the merits of the motion.” The defendant contends that since his petition is governed by subsection (c) the trial court erred in denying it without first affording him a hearing, citing People v. Ethridge, 78 Ill.

1972App.2d 299 , 223 N.E.2d 437 .