delay hearing in Illinois

2015Id. at 209-10 .

2015Id. at 209-10 .

2024Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n.1. -5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230535-U ¶ 17 In his appeal, the defendant argues that the delay in hearing the State’s petition to detain (during which time he remained in custody) violated the Code.

2024Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n.1. -5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230534-U community (id. § 110-6.1(e)(2)); and (3) no condition or combination of conditions on release can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution (id. § 110-6.1(e)(3)). ¶ 17 In his appeal, the defendant argues that the delay in hearing the State’s petition to detain (during which time he remained in custody) violated the Code.

2006Berg, 182 Ill.

2006Berg, 182 Ill.

1927“There can be no question, under the reasoning of People v. Burdette, supra, and authorities there cited, that the delay would bar the hearing by this court if this were the same sort of a case as was there under consideration, but that case involved the holding of a position under the Civil Service law, and this court by-various decisions, notably Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113 , had established a rule that in that class of cases the review must be brought by certiorari within six months or the action would be barred by laches. # * * In the quite recent case of Fisher v. McIntosh, 277

1921But that case involved the holding of a position under the Civil Service law, and this court by various decisions, notably Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113 , had established a rule that in that class of cases the review must be brought by certiorari within six months or the action would be barred by laches.

1927“There can be no question, under the reasoning of People v. Burdette, supra, and authorities there cited, that the delay would bar the hearing by this court if this were the same sort of a case as was there under consideration, but that case involved the holding of a position under the Civil Service law, and this court by-various decisions, notably Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113 , had established a rule that in that class of cases the review must be brought by certiorari within six months or the action would be barred by laches. # * * In the quite recent case of Fisher v. McIntosh, 277

1921There can be no question, under the reasoning of People v. Burdette, supra, and authorities there cited, that the delay would bar the hearing by this court if this were the same sort of a case as was there under consideration.

2021At that time, the State also indicated that it would “follow up with a written offer based on the new counts” and once again asked to postpone - 13 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190187 defendant’s motion to dismiss so that the parties could conduct a Rule 402 conference (see Ill.

2021In support of its tentative interpretation of Rule 415(g)(i), the majority quotes from Murphy, 47 Ill.

2018App. 3d 778 , 782, 237 Ill.Dec. 568 , 709 N.E.2d 1281 (1999) ; see also Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency , 2013 IL App (4th) 120825 , ¶ 42, 376 Ill.Dec. 251 , 998 N.E.2d 961 (finding that the plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment was moot where the defendant agency "eventually provided plaintiff those documents, albeit after a delay in violation of the [FOIA]").

2018App. 3d 778 , 782, 237 Ill.Dec. 568 , 709 N.E.2d 1281 (1999) ; see also Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency , 2013 IL App (4th) 120825 , ¶ 42, 376 Ill.Dec. 251 , 998 N.E.2d 961 (finding that the plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment was moot where the defendant agency "eventually provided plaintiff those documents, albeit after a delay in violation of the [FOIA]").

2015Id. at 209-10 .

2008The fact that defendant may have caused the delay in the hearing (see, e.g., People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 14 1-06-0868 Thus, because the Secretary of State has the authority to enter statutory summary suspensions (see 625 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 2004); Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 256 , 609 N.E.2d at 331 ) and because even an improper statutory summary suspension will take effect unless and until the defendant acts to annul it (see 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b) (West 2004)), we cannot say that an improper suspension is void ab initio.

2008The fact that defendant may have caused the delay in the hearing (see, e.g., People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 14 1-06-0868 Thus, because the Secretary of State has the authority to enter statutory summary suspensions (see 625 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 2004); Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 256 , 609 N.E.2d at 331 ) and because even an improper statutory summary suspension will take effect unless and until the defendant acts to annul it (see 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b) (West 2004)), we cannot say that an improper suspension is void ab initio.

2008The fact that defendant may have caused the delay in the hearing (see, e.g., People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 289, 295 , 665 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (1996)) or may have abandoned his right to have the hearing conducted within 30 days of the date of the filing of his petition (see, e.g., People v. Lagowski, 273 Ill.

1991(Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 486, 500 , 475 N.E.2d 872, 879 .) Because petitioner has not shown how he was prejudiced by the delay in the hearing date, and because he failed to raise this issue below, we will not delve into the merits of this issue.

1991(Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 486, 500 , 475 N.E.2d 872, 879 .) Because petitioner has not shown how he was prejudiced by the delay in the hearing date, and because he failed to raise this issue below, we will not delve into the merits of this issue.

1987The court determined that an employee has no absolute right to a hearing within 30 days (of requesting one) where the hearing’s delay is attributable to the employee’s conduct. ( 121 Ill.

1986As this court stated in Jones: “A defendant must show prejudice or hardship and must be injured by the delay for the defense of laches to apply. [Citations.] * * * *** A spouse is not injured because he is forced to pay the accumulated support in one lump sum as opposed to weekly payments as ordered.” Jones v. Meade (1984), 126 Ill.

1986As this court stated in Jones : "A defendant must show prejudice or hardship and must be injured *1094 by the delay for the defense of laches to apply. [Citations.] * * * * * * A spouse is not injured because he is forced to pay the accumulated support in one lump sum as opposed to weekly payments as ordered." Jones v. Meade (1984), 126 Ill.

1984Fruhling v. County of Champaign (1981), 95 Ill.

1973(Gahan v. Golden (1928), 330 Ill. 624 , 162 N.E. 164 ; In re Estate of Gersch (1963), 43 Ill.

1973(Gahan v. Golden (1928), 330 Ill. 624 , 162 N.E. 164 ; In re Estate of Gersch (1963), 43 Ill.

1973(Gahan v. Golden (1928), 330 Ill. 624 , 162 N.E. 164 ; In re Estate of Gersch (1963), 43 Ill.

1970(People v. Tomaszek, 54 Ill App2d 254, 204 NE2d 30 (1964).) The standard of proof at a hearing to determine whether probation should be terminated is one of the preponderance of the evidence, not the fixed standard of reasonable doubt applied to a finding of guilty in an actual criminal trial.

1958People v. Burrell, supra, 256 . *399 [5] Because of this distinction, we think that neither the delay in the hearing nor the dismissal of the indictment for want of prosecution deprived Kostaken of his constitutional right.

1927“There can be no question, under the reasoning of People v. Burdette, supra, and authorities there cited, that the delay would bar the hearing by this court if this were the same sort of a case as was there under consideration, but that case involved the holding of a position under the Civil Service law, and this court by-various decisions, notably Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113 , had established a rule that in that class of cases the review must be brought by certiorari within six months or the action would be barred by laches. # * * In the quite recent case of Fisher v. McIntosh, 277