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 1997–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.green2 sentences2022The appellants argue that, because the trial court held only a nonevidentiary hearing on Pursley’s petition, the trial court’s decision is subject to de novo review, citing Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 154 (2007) (“Where the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de novo.”). ¶ 58 The appellants’ argument in favor of de novo review is unpersuasive. 2020Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 154 (2007) (“Where the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de novo.”); Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc., 226 Ill. 2d 277, 285 (2007) (where the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing or make any findings of fact and relied on the parties’ oral argument and the record, “we review the court’s ruling on this issue de novo”). - 11 - ¶ 61 Thus, we apply a de novo review to defendant’s claim | 12 | 12 |
Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2020Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 154 (2007) (“Where the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de novo.”); Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc., 226 Ill. 2d 277, 285 (2007) (where the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing or make any findings of fact and relied on the parties’ oral argument and the record, “we review the court’s ruling on this issue de novo”). - 11 - ¶ 61 Thus, we apply a de novo review to defendant’s claim 2019Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 154 (2007) (“Where the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on 20 No. 1-16-1208 documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de novo.”); Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc., 226 Ill. 2d 277, 285 (2007) (where the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing or make any findings of fact and relied on the parties’ oral argument and the record, “we review the court’s ruling on this issue de novo”). ¶ 61 Thus, we apply a de novo review to defenda | 12 | 12 |
Northwest Diversified, Inc. v. Mauergreen2 sentences2008However, where the trial court hears no testimony and the evidence before the court is strictly documentary evidence, “ ‘ “the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable, and a reviewing court will make an independent decision on the facts.” ’ ” (Citation) People v. Bilelegne, 1-06-3213, slip op. at 4 (March 31, 2008), quoting Northwest Diversified, Inc. v. Mauer, 341 Ill. 2008However, where the trial court hears no testimony and bases its decision entirely upon documentary evidence, “ ‘the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable, and a reviewing court will make an independent decision on the facts.’ [Citation.]” Northwest Diversified, Inc. v. Mauer, 341 Ill. | 3 | 6 |
Muller v. Firemen's Fund Insurancegreen2 sentences2013However, where, as here, the trial court heard no testimony and based its decision entirely on documentary evidence, “the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable, and a reviewing court will make an independent decision on the facts.” Muller v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., 289 Ill. 2003However, where, as here, the trial court heard no testimony and based its decision entirely on documentary evidence, “the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable, and a reviewing court will make an independent decision on the facts.” Muller v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., 289 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
In Re Estate of Funkgreen1 sentence2016This analysis was consistent with our supreme court’s general rule that, in civil cases, courts of review are to “review legal issues de novo and factual issues under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2007). - 11 - No. 1-15-0960 ¶ 33 However, in various other circumstances our supreme court has also previously indicated that “[w]here the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de n | 1 | 1 |
Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissionersgreen1 sentence2016This analysis was consistent with our supreme court’s general rule that, in civil cases, courts of review are to “review legal issues de novo and factual issues under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2007). - 11 - No. 1-15-0960 ¶ 33 However, in various other circumstances our supreme court has also previously indicated that “[w]here the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de n | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bilelegnegreen1 sentence2008However, where the trial court hears no testimony and the evidence before the court is strictly documentary evidence, “ 1 “the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable, and a reviewing court will make an independent decision on the facts.” [Citation.]’ ” People v. Bilelegne, 381 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Hook
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Hook , 207 Ill. 1997In re Estate of Hook, 207 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Pursley
green
1 sentence2022While the trial court held only a nonevidentiary hearing on Pursley’s petition for a certificate of innocence, it also - 19 - 2022 IL App (2d) 210558 presided over the third-stage postconviction evidentiary hearing and Pursley’s retrial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.