plenary hearing in Illinois

21 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Powell v. Jonesgreen ill · 1973 · cited in 5 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1980–2001 2 sentences 2001The court noted that “[t]he apparent difference between the procedures provided for certified employees in discharges!, as opposed to] layoffs!,] is the right to a plenary hearing and to counsel, witnesses, confrontation and cross-examination prior to [an employee’s] discharge for cause.” Powell, 56 Ill. 2d at 81 . 2001The court then found that pre-layoff hearings were not constitutionally required and stated that “[i]t would be virtually impossible for State government to function without substantial confusion, delay and uncertainty if each certified employee were entitled to receive a plenary hearing prior to a layoff.” Powell, 56 Ill. 2d at 82 .	1	5
Vance v. Joynergreen illappct · 2020 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Vance v. Joyner, 2019 IL App (4th) 190136, ¶ 82 (“[A] party’s factual assertions in an appellate brief cannot serve as a substitute for a proper record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).	1	1
People v. Brantgreen illappct · 2009 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See -9- No. 1-21-0962 People v. Brant, 394 Ill.	1	1
in re: Tamesha T.green illappct · 2014 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See In re Tamesha T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132986, ¶ 21 (reviewing the lower court’s questioning of the witness for an abuse of discretion).	1	1
Boone v. Boonegreen cadc · 1945 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977As stated in Boone v. Boone, 150 F.2d 153, 154-55 (D.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (4)

Case	Negative	Cited
In Re Francis J. Demonte, a Witness Before the Special September 1981 Grand Jury. Francis J. Demonte, Witness-Appellant v. United Statesgreen ca7 · 1981 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983Ed. 2d 158 , 95 S. Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that “[djelay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased” ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n.23). 1983Ed. 2d 158 , 95 S. Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that “[djelay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased” ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n.23).	1	2
Persico v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983But cf. In re Persico (2d Cir.1974), 491 F.2d 1156 , cert. denied (1974), 419 U.S. 924 , 42 L.Ed.2d 158 , 95 S.Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that "[d]elay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased" ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n. 23). 1983Ed. 2d 158 , 95 S. Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that “[djelay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased” ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n.23).	1	2
Johnson v. Ohiogreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983But cf. In re Persico (2d Cir.1974), 491 F.2d 1156 , cert. denied (1974), 419 U.S. 924 , 42 L.Ed.2d 158 , 95 S.Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that "[d]elay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased" ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n. 23).	1	1
In the Matter of Alphonse Persicogreen ca2 · 1974 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983But cf. In re Persico (2d Cir.1974), 491 F.2d 1156 , cert. denied (1974), 419 U.S. 924 , 42 L.Ed.2d 158 , 95 S.Ct. 199 (grand jury witness not entitled to a plenary hearing to test the legality of surveillance).) The Seventh Circuit found that "[d]elay in grand jury proceedings will not be appreciably increased" ( 667 F.2d 590, 599 ) and noted there is an inherent delay in the contempt hearing itself ( 667 F.2d 590 , 599 n. 23).	1	1

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Ciucci v. THE PEOPLE green ill · 1960 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ashley; People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457 ; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109 .) As to petitioner’s contention that the State has suppressed evidence favorable to his defense, we note that not only did he fail to raise this issue on previous appeal but his allegation is unsupported by affidavit or other proof outside of his conclusionary statement, as required by section 122 — 2 of the Act, and is therefore insufficient to require a plenary hearing as to this contention. 1967Under our rules this dismissal will be res judicata as to future efforts in State courts for it has been consistently held that where there has been a review by writ of error, including the presentation of a bill of exceptions, any claim which might have been raised, but was not, is considered waived. ( People v. Doherty, 36 Ill.2d 286, 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 111 .) And our statutory requirement of supporting material or adequate explanation of its absence is an independent and adequate State ground for dismissal of defendant's petition which	2	1967–1968
People v. Dolgin neutral ill · 1955 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ashley; People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457 ; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109 .) As to petitioner’s contention that the State has suppressed evidence favorable to his defense, we note that not only did he fail to raise this issue on previous appeal but his allegation is unsupported by affidavit or other proof outside of his conclusionary statement, as required by section 122 — 2 of the Act, and is therefore insufficient to require a plenary hearing as to this contention. 1967Under our rules this dismissal will be res judicata as to future efforts in State courts for it has been consistently held that where there has been a review by writ of error, including the presentation of a bill of exceptions, any claim which might have been raised, but was not, is considered waived. ( People v. Doherty, 36 Ill.2d 286, 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 111 .) And our statutory requirement of supporting material or adequate explanation of its absence is an independent and adequate State ground for dismissal of defendant's petition which	2	1967–1968
Hartz Construction v. Village of Western Springs green illappct · 2012 1 sentence 2026Hartz Construction Co. v. Village of Western Springs, 2012 IL App (1st) 103108, ¶ 50 .	1	2026–2026
Piester v. Escobar green illappct · 2015 1 sentence 2026Piester, 2015 IL App (3d) 140457 , ¶ 13.	1	2026–2026
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. green ill · 1976 2 sentences 2023Fourth, Nicholas argues the court erred by reserving the issue of his parenting time after granting the plenary order of protection. ¶ 26 Because Chelsea has not filed an appellee’s brief in this case, we proceed in accordance with the principles set forth in First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 , 345 N.E.2d 493 (1976). 2023Fourth, Nicholas argues the court erred by reserving the issue of his parenting time after granting the plenary order of protection. ¶ 26 Because Chelsea has not filed an appellee’s brief in this case, we proceed in accordance with the principles set forth in First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 , 345 N.E.2d 493 (1976).	1	2023–2023
People v. Felicia W. green illappct · 2003 1 sentence 2020In re Jaber -4- W., 344 Ill.	1	2020–2020
Gakuba v. Kurtz green illappct · 2015 1 sentence 2015Respondent argued that, because the -2- 2015 IL App (2d) 140252 court found, at the emergency hearing on the petition, that no course of conduct had been alleged or demonstrated, the matter should be dismissed.	1	2015–2015
People v. Coleman green ill · 1998 1 sentence 1999People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998).	1	1999–1999
Wendl v. Moline Police Pension Board green illappct · 1981 1 sentence 1987App. 3d 482 , 421 N.E.2d 584 .) Although plaintiff here may not be entitled to a plenary hearing before his benefits are terminated in circumstances such as here, it is clear that the board should have afforded Moore notice, some opportunity to be heard, and/or consideration of any request for reconsideration before the administrative proceedings were concluded.	1	1987–1987
Perry v. Sindermann green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 1980Ed. 2d 570 , 92 S. Ct. 2694 , and Board of Regents v. Roth, and concluded that in the case of layoffs, as distinguished from discharges, a plenary hearing was not required.	1	1980–1980
Hinton v. Searles green illappct · 1977 1 sentence 1979(Hinton v. Searles (1977), 53 Ill.	1	1979–1979
Goss v. Lopez green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1979The Muscare court placed great reliance upon Goss v. Lopez (1975), 419 U.S. 565 , 42 L. 1979The Muscare court placed great reliance upon Goss v. Lopez (1975), 419 U.S. 565 , 42 L.	1	1979–1979
The PEOPLE v. Armes neutral ill · 1967 1 sentence 1968(People v. Ashley; People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457 ; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109 .) As to petitioner’s contention that the State has suppressed evidence favorable to his defense, we note that not only did he fail to raise this issue on previous appeal but his allegation is unsupported by affidavit or other proof outside of his conclusionary statement, as required by section 122 — 2 of the Act, and is therefore insufficient to require a plenary hearing as to this contention.	1	1968–1968
The PEOPLE v. McGuire green ill · 1966 1 sentence 1968We specifically directed the trial court, if it found the confession inadmissible, to grant a new trial or, if it found it to be admissible, to enter a new judgment of conviction. 35 Ill.2d at 234 - Upon remandment, the trial court, following a plenary hearing where additional testimony was introduced, ruled the confession admissible and entered a new judgment of conviction.	1	1968–1968
The PEOPLE v. Hamby green ill · 1965 1 sentence 1968(People v. Ashley; People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457 ; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109 .) As to petitioner’s contention that the State has suppressed evidence favorable to his defense, we note that not only did he fail to raise this issue on previous appeal but his allegation is unsupported by affidavit or other proof outside of his conclusionary statement, as required by section 122 — 2 of the Act, and is therefore insufficient to require a plenary hearing as to this contention.	1	1968–1968
People v. Reeves green ill · 1952 1 sentence 1968People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555 ; see also People v. Ashley.	1	1968–1968
The PEOPLE v. Doherty green ill · 1966 1 sentence 1967Under our rules this dismissal will be res judicata as to future efforts in State courts for it has been consistently held that where there has been a review by writ of error, including the presentation of a bill of exceptions, any claim which might have been raised, but was not, is considered waived. ( People v. Doherty, 36 Ill.2d 286, 291 ; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85 ; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 111 .) And our statutory requirement of supporting material or adequate explanation of its absence is an independent and adequate State ground for dismissal of defendant's petition which	1	1967–1967

Where else courts name it

NJ 758 (1956–2026) NY 208 (1958–2026) CT 148 (1922–2026) PA 32 (2005–2025) VA 21 (1968–2024) IL 21 (1967–2026) TX 19 (1972–2021) MD 17 (1967–2017) WV 13 (1983–2023) ME 12 (1979–2020) CA 11 (1955–2014) VI 9 (2013–2024) KS 9 (1966–2009) FL 7 (1964–2010) NC 6 (1967–2017) WI 5 (1988–1991) OH 5 (1984–2005) OR 5 (1951–1995) MA 4 (1936–2012) DC 4 (2001–2003) VT 3 (2007–2013) AL 3 (1971–1993) DE 3 (1999–2024) AZ 2 (1964–2016) MS 2 (1977–2023) OK 2 (1916–1999) MO 2 (1974–1987)

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