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.
26 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Barbara H.green2 sentences2001See Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 498 . 2001See Barbara H. , 183 Ill. 2d at 498 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2026ANALYSIS ¶ 27 Taylor first argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance to obtain documents regarding his education and asks this court to remand the matter for a new hearing. “[T]he granting or denial of a continuance is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not interfere with that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.” People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 125 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Hermangreen1 sentence2025We therefore decline Zachary’s invitation to reverse the parenting time decision and remand the matter for a new hearing. ¶ 65 We reiterate that “ ‘[i]n child custody cases, there is a strong and compelling presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court because it is in a superior position to evaluate the evidence and determine the best interests of the child.’ ” Young, 2018 IL App (4th) 170001, ¶ 64 (quoting Agers, 2013 IL App (5th) 120375, ¶ 25 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Jessica F.green1 sentence2025Further, “ ‘[i]t is no small burden to show that a [trial] court’s ruling *** is against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” In re Marriage of Jessica F., 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, ¶ 48 (quoting Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 50 ). | 1 | 1 |
Wendy and William Spatz Charitable Foundation v. 2263 North Lincoln Corporationgreen1 sentence2023See Wendy & William Spatz, 2013 IL App (1st) 122076, ¶ 42 ; Richardson, 375 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2023But this case presents a wrinkle because we must reverse the circuit court’s award of attorney fees and costs, and remand the matter for a new hearing on Graham’s supplemental petition for attorney fees and costs. ¶ 58 Similar circumstances occurred in People v. Johnson, 87 Ill. 2d 98, 101 (1981), where two attorneys who had represented indigent defendants in criminal cases sought compensation for their - 26 - services. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shirleygreen1 sentence2021See Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 369 (court declined to remand for a new hearing where certificate filed on remand complied with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) and defendant received a full and fair hearing on his postplea motion). ¶ 36 III. | 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 sentences2006In Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 , defendant presented a posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the supreme court remanded the matter for a new hearing on defendant's motion with newly appointed counsel. 2006In Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 , defendant presented a posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the supreme court remanded the matter for a new hearing on defendant’s motion with newly appointed counsel. | 17 | 2001–2021 |
People v. Burge
green
1 sentence2026An abuse of discretion will only be found “where the court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Burge, 2021 IL 125642, ¶ 37 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re M.S.
neutral
1 sentence2025CONCLUSION ¶ 61 For the reasons stated, we vacate the circuit court’s August 28, 2024, orders, and we remand this matter for a new hearing on Benjamin’s “Petition for Order for Integrated Assessment for Father, for Referrals for Services to Father for Reunification, and to Change Permanency Goal of Guardianship to Return Home” and for a hearing in compliance with section 11-5(b) of the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/11-5(b) (West 2022)) on the petition for private guardianship. ¶ 62 Vacated and remanded with directions. - 23 - No. 1-24-1925 In re M.S., 2025 IL App (1st) 241925 Decision Under Review: | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jameson v. Williams
green
1 sentence2025Further, “ ‘[i]t is no small burden to show that a [trial] court’s ruling *** is against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” In re Marriage of Jessica F., 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, ¶ 48 (quoting Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 50 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Marriage of Agers
green
1 sentence2025We therefore decline Zachary’s invitation to reverse the parenting time decision and remand the matter for a new hearing. ¶ 65 We reiterate that “ ‘[i]n child custody cases, there is a strong and compelling presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court because it is in a superior position to evaluate the evidence and determine the best interests of the child.’ ” Young, 2018 IL App (4th) 170001, ¶ 64 (quoting Agers, 2013 IL App (5th) 120375, ¶ 25 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Blagg v. ILL. FWD TRUCK & EQUIP. CO.
green
1 sentence1994Blagg I, 186 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1991In People v. Jackson (1985), 131 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.