James motion in Illinois

2019In reviewing a motion granted pursuant to section 2-615, “we accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. [Citation.] We also construe the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Marshall, 222 Ill. 2d at 429 . ¶ 21 We first examine the stricken allegations before turning to the dismissed claims. ¶ 22 Stricken Allegations ¶ 23 The circuit court granted FCCD and James’s motion to strike certain allegations in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint as irrelevant or cumulative under section 2-615(a) of the

2019In reviewing a motion granted pursuant to section 2-615, “we accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. [Citation.] We also construe the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Marshall, 222 Ill. 2d at 429 . ¶ 21 We first examine the stricken allegations before turning to the dismissed claims. ¶ 22 Stricken Allegations ¶ 23 The circuit court granted FCCD and James’s motion to strike certain allegations in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint as irrelevant or cumulative under section 2-615(a) of the

2019The appellate court affirmed. 2018 IL App (2d) 170435 , ¶ 106. -6- ¶ 24 A party may move to strike immaterial matter from a complaint. 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2014). “[A] fact is ‘relevant’ if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” People v. Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill. 2d 177, 193 (2000); see also Ill.

2019The appellate court affirmed. 2018 IL App (2d) 170435 , ¶ 106. ¶ 24 A party may move to strike immaterial matter from a complaint. 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2014). “[A] fact is ‘relevant’ if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” People v. Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill. 2d 177, 193 (2000); see also Ill.

2017In support of his argument, Mr. James attempts to distinguish certain statements in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), that were relied on by the trial court in its denial of Mr. James’s motion for a new trial.

2017In support of his argument, Mr. James attempts to distinguish certain statements in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), that were relied on by the trial court in its denial of Mr. James’s motion for a new trial.

2011Id. at 398 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 814 .

2011Id. at 398 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 814 .

2003People v. James, 242 Ill.App.3d 675 , 183 Ill.Dec. 839 , 612 N.E.2d 96 (1993).

2003People v. James, 242 Ill.

2024Ammar, 2017 IL App (1st) 162931 , ¶ 12. ¶ 37 Under Rule 341(h)(7), an appellant’s brief must set forth his contentions, which he is required to support with argument, citations to the appellate record, and citations to authority.

2024In re Marriage of Earlywine, 2013 IL 114779 , ¶ 13. ¶ 35 We note, however, that the deficiencies of James’s brief hinder our review of his claims.

2024Although we have discretion to strike a brief and to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the applicable rules (McCann, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12 ), we decline to strike James’s brief, as we understand the core contentions presented therein.

2021CONCLUSION ¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed. ¶ 23 Affirmed. 7 No. 3-20-0476 Cite as: In re Marriage of Graham, 2021 IL App (3d) 200476 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 08-D-1794; the Hon.

2002When Woods came back to the car, the defendant rejected James' plea that Woods be allowed to go, saying that he was `running this.' After James was shot, the defendant straddled Woods, said to her, `You bitch,' and shot her at close range." Harris II, 164 Ill.2d at 349, 207 Ill.Dec. 400 , 647 N.E.2d 893 .

2002When Woods came back to the car, the defendant rejected James' plea that Woods be allowed to go, saying that he was `running this.' After James was shot, the defendant straddled Woods, said to her, `You bitch,' and shot her at close range." Harris II, 164 Ill.2d at 349, 207 Ill.Dec. 400 , 647 N.E.2d 893 .

1989Ed. 2d at 405 , 99 S. Ct. at 433-34 .) The trial court erred in holding otherwise, and James’ motion to suppress should have been denied.

1987(Biggs v. Spader (1951), 411 Ill. 42 , 103 N.E.2d 104 .) It is apparent from James’ brief that he has not followed the supreme court rules regulating appellate practice. (107 Ill. 2d R. 301 et seq.) The result is that the cost of research on the multitude of issues he raises has fallen upon the court.

1987(Biggs v. Spader (1951), 411 Ill. 42 , 103 N.E.2d 104 .) It is apparent from James’ brief that he has not followed the supreme court rules regulating appellate practice. (107 Ill. 2d R. 301 et seq.) The result is that the cost of research on the multitude of issues he raises has fallen upon the court.

1986Although in denying James’ motion to quash his arrest the trial judge said that he “recalled] very vividly the cast of characters involved in” and had “very carefully” considered Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.

1986Although in denying James’ motion to quash his arrest the trial judge said that he “recalled] very vividly the cast of characters involved in” and had “very carefully” considered Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.

1983James and Lewis also contend that under the circumstances, where all codefendants made extrajudicial, inculpatory statements which subsequently were admitted at their joint trial they were denied their sixth amendment rights to confrontation under Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1983James and Lewis also contend that under the circumstances, where all codefendants made extrajudicial, inculpatory statements which subsequently were admitted at their joint trial they were denied their sixth amendment rights to confrontation under Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1970(People v. McCasle, 35 Ill.2d 552, 556 .) There is nothing in the record nor is any argument offered to show that James’ defense was inconsistent or antagonistic to that offered by his co-defendants.