right to an evidentiary hearing in Illinois

23 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 3 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
The People v. Washingtongreen ill · 1967 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1970–2017 2 sentences 2017While affirming the dismissal of a petition -29- 1-14-1660 without holding an evidentiary hearing, Pittman noted our supreme court held in People v. Washington, 38 Ill. 2d 446, 451 (1967), that where the issue was the right to an evidentiary hearing where the petition was not accompanied by the required supporting affidavits, the petition itself was a sworn statement by the accused and in the absence of anything in the record disputing the allegations, the accused was entitled to a hearing to determine truth or falsity. 2016While affirming the dismissal of a petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, Pittman noted our supreme court held in People v. Washington, 38 Ill. 2d 446, 451 (1967), that where the issue was the right to an evidentiary hearing where the petition was not accompanied by the required supporting affidavits, the petition itself was a sworn statement by the accused and in the absence of anything in the record disputing -29- 1-14-1660 the allegations, the accused was entitled to a hearing to determine truth or falsity.	2	4
People v. Stilesgreen illappct · 1981 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026Lakes cited published opinions for support: People v. Robinson, 46 Ill. 2d 229, 231-32 (1970) (“there is no question that a defendant has a right to a fair and impartial hearing to determine whether” an eyewitness identification was the product of suggestive police procedures); People v. Stiles, 95 Ill. 2025See, e.g., People v. Robinson, 46 Ill. 2d 229, 231-32 (1970) (“there is no question that a defendant has a right to a fair and impartial hearing to determine whether” an eyewitness identification was the product of suggestive police procedures); People v. Stiles, 95 Ill.	2	2
The PEOPLE v. Robinsongreen ill · 1970 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026Lakes cited published opinions for support: People v. Robinson, 46 Ill. 2d 229, 231-32 (1970) (“there is no question that a defendant has a right to a fair and impartial hearing to determine whether” an eyewitness identification was the product of suggestive police procedures); People v. Stiles, 95 Ill. 2025See, e.g., People v. Robinson, 46 Ill. 2d 229, 231-32 (1970) (“there is no question that a defendant has a right to a fair and impartial hearing to determine whether” an eyewitness identification was the product of suggestive police procedures); People v. Stiles, 95 Ill.	2	2
People v. Leegreen illappct · 1993 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Defendant appeals, arguing that the petition was timely; that he has the right to an evidentiary hearing on his petition; and that his postconviction counsel did not provide him with the reasonable assistance that the Act requires (see People v. Lee, 251 Ill. 2005Defendant appeals, arguing that the petition was timely; that he has the right to an evidentiary hearing on his petition; and that his postconviction counsel did not provide him with the reasonable assistance that the Act requires (see People v. Lee , 251 Ill.	2	2
People v. Donohogreen ill · 2003 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See Donoho 204 Ill. 2d at 183 . ¶ 38 Additionally, although the defendant argues that the court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing as he requested, he acknowledges that there is no law granting him the right to an evidentiary hearing.	1	1
Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd.green ill · 2006 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Content of Petition ¶ 38 To succeed on a section 2-1401 petition, petitioners must “set forth allegations supporting the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; due diligence in presenting the claim or defense to the circuit court in the original action; and due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.” Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85, 94 (2006). “ ‘The quantum of proof necessary to sustain a section 2-1401 petition is a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” Paul, 223 Ill. 2d at 95 (quoting Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 221 ). ¶ 39 A. Meritorious Claim or Defense ¶ 4 2013Content of Petition ¶ 38 To succeed on a section 2-1401 petition, petitioners must “set forth allegations supporting the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; due diligence in presenting the claim or defense to the circuit court in the original action; and due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.” Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85, 94 (2006). “ ‘The quantum of proof necessary to sustain a section 2-1401 petition is a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” Paul, 223 Ill. 2d at 95 (quoting Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 221 ). ¶ 39 A. Meritorious Claim or Defense ¶ 4	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Estate of Riha v. Christ Hospital green illappct · 1989 2 sentences 2018Id. ¶ 53 Plaintiff relies on this court’s holdings in Passmore and Riha in contending that she had the right to an evidentiary hearing to establish her competency prior to the judicial adjudication. 2018Id. ¶ 53 Plaintiff relies on this court's holdings in Passmore and Riha in contending that she had the right to an evidentiary hearing to establish her competency prior to the judicial adjudication.	3	2018–2018
Lydon v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc. green illappct · 1998 2 sentences 2018The 2010 Action Was Valid ¶ 43 In support of her contention that Ford had a right to an evidentiary hearing to determine her competency to enter into an attorney-client relationship in 2010, plaintiff relies on Lydon v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 297 Ill. 2018The 2010 Action Was Valid ¶ 43 In support of her contention that Ford had a right to an evidentiary hearing to determine her competency to enter into an attorney-client relationship in 2010, plaintiff relies on Lydon v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc. , 297 Ill.	3	2018–2018
Smith v. Airoom, Inc. green ill · 1986 2 sentences 1993(See Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 223 , 499 N.E.2d at 1387 .) The right to an evidentiary hearing may be waived if the parties to a section 2 — 1401 proceeding fail to request it (Cunningham v. Miller’s General Insurance Co. (1989), 188 Ill. 1993(See Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 223 , 499 N.E.2d at 1387 .) The right to an evidentiary hearing may be waived if the parties to a section 2 — 1401 proceeding fail to request it (Cunningham v. Miller’s General Insurance Co. (1989), 188 Ill.	3	1990–2013
People v. Pittman green illappct · 1989 2 sentences 2017Pittman, 192 Ill. 2016Pittman, 192 Ill.	2	2016–2017
People v. Foster green ill · 1996 2 sentences 1998Foster , 168 Ill. 2d at 473-74 . 1998Foster, 168 Ill. 2d at 473-74 .	2	1998–1998
People v. Pineda green illappct · 2007 1 sentence 2009Indeed, as we observed in Pineda, if a defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective could survive summary dismissal when the defendant merely pleaded that counsel erred, “[courts] would essentially grant all postconviction [defendants] the right to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel so long as they simply alleged any de minimis error of counsel.” Pineda, 373 Ill.	1	2009–2009
In Re Marriage of Herrick green illappct · 1994 1 sentence 1995The answer of the garnishee shall be considered denied without further pleading.” (735 ILCS 5/12 — 711 (West 1992).) Relying on In re Marriage of Herrick (1994), 267 Ill.	1	1995–1995
Cunningham v. Miller's General Insurance green illappct · 1989 2 sentences 1993(See Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 223 , 499 N.E.2d at 1387 .) The right to an evidentiary hearing may be waived if the parties to a section 2 — 1401 proceeding fail to request it (Cunningham v. Miller’s General Insurance Co. (1989), 188 Ill. 1993App. 3d 689 , 544 N.E.2d 441 ), permitting the court to decide the petition on the pleadings and affidavits (Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 223 , 499 N.E.2d at 1387 ; O’Malley v. Powell (1990), 202 Ill.	1	1993–1993
O'MALLEY v. Powell green illappct · 1990 1 sentence 1993App. 3d 689 , 544 N.E.2d 441 ), permitting the court to decide the petition on the pleadings and affidavits (Smith, 114 Ill. 2d at 223 , 499 N.E.2d at 1387 ; O’Malley v. Powell (1990), 202 Ill.	1	1993–1993
Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co. green ill · 1982 2 sentences 1990(Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273 , 433 N.E.2d 253 .) However, the parties’ waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing permits the court to decide the motion on the affidavits. 1990(Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273 , 433 N.E.2d 253 .) However, the parties’ waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing permits the court to decide the motion on the affidavits.	1	1990–1990
People v. Stewart green ill · 1984 1 sentence 1990(Stewart, 105 Ill. 2d at 44 .) Facts are material and, hence, must be disclosed if their omission would make the affidavit substantially misleading; facts must be deemed material for this purpose if, because of their inherent probative force, there is a substantial possibility that they would have altered a reasonable magistrate’s probable cause determination.	1	1990–1990
In Re Marriage of Pitulla green illappct · 1986 1 sentence 1989App. 3d at 961 .) The court further found that if the attorney refuses to provide the client with an itemized statement of services, the client has a right to an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees pursuant to a section 2 — 1401 petition. 141 Ill.	1	1989–1989
The PEOPLE v. Williams green ill · 1970 2 sentences 1989Finally, in People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697 , the petitioner alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated because of misrepresentations which had been made to him by his attorney. 1989Finally, in People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697 , the petitioner alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated because of misrepresentations which had been made to him by his attorney.	1	1989–1989
The PEOPLE v. Mitchell green ill · 1970 2 sentences 1986Justice Schaefer called these kinds of complaints “ ‘boiler plate’ affidavits” which, because of their similarity and number, “show an absence of probable cause.” ( 45 Ill. 2d 148, 158 , 258 N.E.2d 345 .) Justice Schaefer took the position that a defendant has the right to an evidentiary hearing to controvert the facts of a complaint for a search warrant to establish probable cause after a warrant, valid on its face, had been issued and executed. 1986Justice Schaefer called these kinds of complaints “ ‘boiler plate’ affidavits” which, because of their similarity and number, “show an absence of probable cause.” ( 45 Ill. 2d 148, 158 , 258 N.E.2d 345 .) Justice Schaefer took the position that a defendant has the right to an evidentiary hearing to controvert the facts of a complaint for a search warrant to establish probable cause after a warrant, valid on its face, had been issued and executed.	1	1986–1986
The PEOPLE v. Jackson green ill · 1964 2 sentences 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact. 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact.	1	1975–1975
The People v. Taylor green ill · 1965 2 sentences 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact. 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact.	1	1975–1975
The PEOPLE v. Wagoner green ill · 1956 2 sentences 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact. 1975(People v. Wagoner (1956), 8 Ill.2d 188, 196-97 , 133 N.E.2d 24, 29-30 ; People v. Jackson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 408 , 202 N.E.2d 465 ; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill.2d 417 , 211 N.E.2d 673 .) In fact, Illinois has long held that, where the competency (i.e., admissibility) of a confession is timely put at issue, that issue must first be determined by the trial judge before the admission of the confession into evidence, and that issue can never be left to the jury which is adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant, because that issue is one of law and not of fact.	1	1975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (3) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-616 (3) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (3) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-622 (3) USC § 28u.s.c.2675 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 105 (1979–2026) CA 45 (1970–2026) OH 30 (1997–2026) IL 23 (1970–2026) TX 19 (1969–2017) GA 12 (2003–2021) WI 10 (1992–2022) TN 10 (1970–2024) CT 9 (1991–2019) MS 8 (2007–2024) MT 8 (2003–2025) FL 8 (1992–2022) MI 8 (1981–2024) DC 6 (1991–2019) MN 6 (1966–2017) AK 6 (2009–2022) AL 5 (1994–2005) CO 5 (1987–2025) IN 4 (1991–2019) WV 4 (1978–1990) NY 4 (1973–1998) MA 4 (1992–2019) MO 3 (1980–2011) AZ 3 (2016–2026) NH 3 (2007–2021) NJ 3 (1981–2022) LA 3 (1985–2009) NV 3 (1974–2020) KS 3 (1965–1967) RI 2 (2009–2017) OK 2 (1994–1994) MD 2 (1996–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check