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.
25 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2007App. 3d 721, 727 (1994), the court stated that compliance with “certification is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion.” See also People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill. 2007For example, in People v. Houle, 257 Ill.App.3d 721, 727 , 196 Ill.Dec. 292 , 629 N.E.2d 837 (1994), the court stated that compliance with "certification is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion." See also People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill.App.3d 168, 171 , 156 Ill.Dec. 426 , 570 N.E.2d 902 (1991) ("Accordingly, we hold that where defendant has not waived counsel, the filing of the defense attorney's Rule 604(d) certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to vacate the judgment"). | 5 | 8 |
People v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., People v. Carroll, 375 Ill. 2021See, e.g., People v. Carroll, 375 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dismukegreen2 sentences2006App. 3d at 608 , 823 N.E.2d at 1133 (the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea). 2006App. 3d at 608 , 823 N.E.2d at 1133 (the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Portergreen2 sentences2024See People v. Porter, 258 Ill. 2007We reasoned that, “[sjince the well-established rule is that the filing of the certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea and vacate the judgment, the prior hearing is a nullity as it was tainted by the failure to follow the certification procedure.” (Emphasis added.) Porter, 258 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hancockgreen2 sentences1996People v. Hancock, 208 Ill. 1991See People v. Hancock (1991), 208 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sawyergreen1 sentence1996See also People v. Sawyer, 258 Ill. | 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. Ramage
green
2 sentences1994(People v. Ramage (1992), 229 Ill. 1994App. 3d 782, 786 (and cases cited therein).) The filing of a certificate is a condition precedent to the hearing on the motion to withdraw a guilty plea (Ramage, 229 Ill. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Village of Rosemont v. Lentin Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence2022The College further claims that, pursuant to the CM agreement, the trial court “must also make a coverage determination or a finding of fact as to what an ‘all-risk’ or ‘builders’ risk’ insurance policy covers or should cover and what is appropriately excluded as an industry standard.” The College additionally emphasizes that the cause of the defect in the concrete slab remains in dispute. ¶ 31 Our analysis is guided by Rosemont, 144 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Houle
green
2 sentences2007For example, in People v. Houle, 257 Ill.App.3d 721, 727 , 196 Ill.Dec. 292 , 629 N.E.2d 837 (1994), the court stated that compliance with "certification is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion." See also People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill.App.3d 168, 171 , 156 Ill.Dec. 426 , 570 N.E.2d 902 (1991) ("Accordingly, we hold that where defendant has not waived counsel, the filing of the defense attorney's Rule 604(d) certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to vacate the judgment"). 2007For example, in People v. Houle, 257 Ill.App.3d 721, 727 , 196 Ill.Dec. 292 , 629 N.E.2d 837 (1994), the court stated that compliance with "certification is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion." See also People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill.App.3d 168, 171 , 156 Ill.Dec. 426 , 570 N.E.2d 902 (1991) ("Accordingly, we hold that where defendant has not waived counsel, the filing of the defense attorney's Rule 604(d) certificate is a condition precedent to a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to vacate the judgment"). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Hayes
green
1 sentence1996App. 3d 957 , 553 N.E.2d 30 (1990), for the proposition that the filing of defense counsel’s certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d) is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion filed under the rule. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence1994(Davis, 255 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Janes
green
1 sentence1994(Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33 .) However, proper certification is a condition precedent to a hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to vacate the judgment. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Reed
neutral
1 sentence1992People v. Reed (1991), 213 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Dean
green
1 sentence1991(See People v. Dean (1978), 61 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Steinmetz
green
1 sentence1991In view of the relatively high frequency with which trial counsel and trial courts have in the past ignored the principles enunciated in Wilk by failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), we no longer adhere to the harmless error analysis of Rule 604(d) violations as set forth in People v. Steinmetz (1982), 110 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Reif v. Barrett
green
2 sentences1982The payment of the tax itself is a condition precedent to the privilege of carrying on a business or occupation.” Reif v. Barrett (1933), 355 Ill. 104, 109 . 1982Its effect is to license a person engaged in a given calling or occupation. * * * The payment of the tax itself is a condition precedent to the privilege of carrying on a business or occupation." Reif v. Barrett (1933), 355 Ill. 104, 109 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Courson v. New York Life Ins. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1944Co. 295 Pa. 518 , the court held that the furnishing°of proof of disability was a condition precedent to a waiver of premiums. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.