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.
21 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Petersengreen2 sentences2020“On the question of timeliness, courts have ruled that ‘[e]ven when the court has not ruled on a substantial issue, the motion may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim.’ ” Williams, 2017 IL App (1st) 172045, ¶ 11 (quoting In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. 2020“On the question of timeliness, courts have ruled that ‘[e]ven when the court has not ruled on a substantial issue, the motion may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim.’ ” Williams, 2017 IL App (1st) 172045, ¶ 11 (quoting In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. | 6 | 9 |
In Re Marriage of Kozloffgreen2 sentences2013While discussing the law under the old change of venue statute, we cited Kozloff, Kenik, and Hader, and made the following observation: “Even when the trial court has not ruled on a substantial issue, it appears the motion may be denied if the movant has had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim (Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d at 531 , 463 N.E.2d at 721 ; Kenik, 181 Ill. 2013While discussing the law under the old change of venue statute, we cited Kozloff, Kenik, and Hader, and made the following observation: “Even when the trial court has not ruled on a substantial issue, it appears the motion may be denied if the movant has had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim (Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d at 531 , 463 N.E.2d at 721 ; Kenik, 181 Ill. | 2 | 5 |
Williams v. Gregory Leonard, Lakeshore Recycling Sys., LLCgreen2 sentences2020“On the question of timeliness, courts have ruled that ‘[e]ven when the court has not ruled on a substantial issue, the motion may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim.’ ” Williams, 2017 IL App (1st) 172045, ¶ 11 (quoting In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. 2020“On the question of timeliness, courts have ruled that ‘[e]ven when the court has not ruled on a substantial issue, the motion may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim.’ ” Williams, 2017 IL App (1st) 172045, ¶ 11 (quoting In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Gaygreen2 sentences2021Id. ¶¶ 13-14. ¶ 74 Yet, even if the circuit court has not ruled on any substantial issue in the case, the court may deny a motion for a substitution of judge if the moving party “had an opportunity to ‘test the waters’ and form an opinion as to the judge’s reaction to her claim.” In re Estate of Gay, 353 Ill. 2018Even if a court has not made a substantive ruling, it may deny substitution "if the movant had an opportunity to 'test the waters' and form an opinion as to the judge's reaction to her claim." Gay , 353 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Steidlgreen1 sentence2024People v. Steidl, 177 Ill. 2d 239, 265 (1997). ¶ 36 Here, defendant alleged that the court’s comments “forced the jury to believe the State’s evidence *** and *** that Defense counsel sought to deceive[ ] both the judge and the jury.” However, defendant has presented no facts which indicate that he was prejudiced by the court’s “rage.” Evaluating the court’s reaction to defense counsel in the context of the proceedings, the court’s displeasure was grounded in valid frustration. | 1 | 1 |
Scroggins v. Scrogginsgreen1 sentence2013App. 3d 333, 336 , 762 N.E.2d 1195, 1198 (2002), we attempted to set the record straight regarding the “test the waters” doctrine, as follows: “Under prior statutes allowing the automatic substitution of a judge, an inquiry could be made whether the motion was filed simply for delay or whether the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim. [Roach, 245 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Roach
green
2 sentences2013App. 3d 333, 336 , 762 N.E.2d 1195, 1198 (2002), we attempted to set the record straight regarding the “test the waters” doctrine, as follows: “Under prior statutes allowing the automatic substitution of a judge, an inquiry could be made whether the motion was filed simply for delay or whether the movant had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim. [Roach, 245 Ill. 1999The court in Roach also noted that “[e]ven when the trial court has not ruled on a substantial issue, it appears the motion may be denied if the movant has had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim” (Roach, 245 Ill. | 7 | 1999–2013 |
In Re Marriage of Kenik
green
2 sentences2013The court explained its position, as follows: “This exchange presented [the party seeking a change of venue] the opportunity to form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim, thereby additionally foreclosing [his] automatic right to a change of venue.” Id. ¶ 38 Finally, in Hader v. St. 2013While discussing the law under the old change of venue statute, we cited Kozloff, Kenik, and Hader, and made the following observation: “Even when the trial court has not ruled on a substantial issue, it appears the motion may be denied if the movant has had an opportunity to test the waters and form an opinion as to the court’s reaction to his claim (Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d at 531 , 463 N.E.2d at 721 ; Kenik, 181 Ill. | 2 | 1993–2013 |
Hader v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
green
1 sentence2013App. 3d at 271 , 536 N.E.2d at 984 ; Hader[, 207 Ill. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
City of Granite City v. House of Prayers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004City of Granite City v. House of Prayers, Inc., 333 Ill.App.3d 452 , 266 Ill.Dec. 803 , 775 N.E.2d 643 (2002). *863 Even in the absence of any substantive ruling, a motion for substitution of judge may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to "test the waters" and form an opinion as to the judge's reaction to her claim. 2004City of Granite City v. House of Prayers, Inc., 333 Ill.App.3d 452 , 266 Ill.Dec. 803 , 775 N.E.2d 643 (2002). *863 Even in the absence of any substantive ruling, a motion for substitution of judge may be denied if the movant had an opportunity to "test the waters" and form an opinion as to the judge's reaction to her claim. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Marriage of Birt
green
1 sentence1989(See In re Marriage of Kozloff (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 526, 530-31 , 463 N.E.2d 719 ; In re Marriage of Birt, 157 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.