limited and narrow exception in Illinois

2025However, the supreme court has stated: “The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default [citation] and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the int

2016Finally, he maintains fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void and he is entitled to $1380 in presentence credit. ¶ 43 A. Plain Error ¶ 44 “The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default ***.” People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 697 (2009).

2003Plain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule, and is invoked only where the evidence is closely balanced, or where the alleged error is so substantial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. *878 People v. Kuntu, 196 Ill.2d 105, 128 , 256 Ill.Dec. 500 , 752 N.E.2d 380 (2001).

2003Plain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule, and is invoked only where the evidence is closely balanced, or where the alleged error is so substantial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. *878 People v. Kuntu, 196 Ill.2d 105, 128 , 256 Ill.Dec. 500 , 752 N.E.2d 380 (2001).

2025However, the supreme court has stated: “The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default [citation] and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the int

2015Defendant argues that despite failing to object to voir dire at trial, we should review this issue under the first prong of the plain-error doctrine, as the evidence is closely balanced. 10 ¶ 35 The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default (People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)) and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendan

2008Plain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule, invoked only where: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) the alleged error is so substantial that it deprives the defendant of a fair trial. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005).

2008Plain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule, invoked only where: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) the alleged error is so substantial that it deprives the defendant of a fair trial. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005).

2023“In the sentencing context, a defendant must *** show either that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). ¶ 17 “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to establish [(1)] that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and [(2)] that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People

2023Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 .

2022Rather, it is a limited and narrow exception ‘designed to redress serious injustices.’ ” People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 41 (quoting People v. Baker, 341 Ill.

2018"Rather, it is a limited and narrow exception 'designed to redress serious injustices.' " Id. (quoting People v. Baker , 341 Ill.

2016People v. Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d 71, 100 (1992).

2003People v. Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d 71, 100 (1992).

2003People v. Coffee , No. 86975, October 18, 2001, 2001 WL 1243638 ; citing People v. Herrett , 137 Ill. 2d 195, 209-10 (1990).

2003People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 (2001), citing People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195, 209-10 (1990); People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576-77 (1980).

2006However, "[p]lain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule." In re Detention of Traynoff, 338 Ill.App.3d 949, 963 , 273 Ill.Dec. 691 , 789 N.E.2d 865 (2003).

2006However, “[p]lain error is a limited and narrow exception to the general waiver rule.” In re Detention ofTraynoff, 338 Ill.

2015Defendant argues that despite failing to object to voir dire at trial, we should review this issue under the first prong of the plain-error doctrine, as the evidence is closely balanced. 10 ¶ 35 The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default (People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)) and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendan

2015Defendant argues that despite failing to object to voir dire at trial, we should review this issue under the first prong of the plain-error doctrine, as the evidence is closely balanced. 10 ¶ 35 The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default (People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)) and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendan

2019People v. Lewis , 234 Ill. 2d 32 , 42, 332 Ill.Dec. 334 , 912 N.E.2d 1220 (2009).

2019People v. Lewis , 234 Ill. 2d 32 , 42, 332 Ill.Dec. 334 , 912 N.E.2d 1220 (2009).

2003Plain errors are those that affect something that is “ ‘fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Keene, 169 Ill. 2d at 17 , 660 N.E.2d at 910 , quoting People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 456 , 386 N.E.2d 272, 278 (1979) (Ryan, J., specially concurring); see also People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 , 792 N.E.2d 1163, 1196 (2001) (reiterating that plain error is “a limited and narrow exception” to the waiver rule).

2003Plain errors are those that affect something that is “ ‘fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Keene, 169 Ill. 2d at 17 , 660 N.E.2d at 910 , quoting People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 456 , 386 N.E.2d 272, 278 (1979) (Ryan, J., specially concurring); see also People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 , 792 N.E.2d 1163, 1196 (2001) (reiterating that plain error is “a limited and narrow exception” to the waiver rule).

2003People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 (2001), citing People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195, 209-10 (1990); People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576-77 (1980).

2001People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195, 209-10 (1990); People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576-77 (1980).

1992While the common law doctrine that an employer may discharge an at-will employee for any reason or for no reason is still the general rule in Illinois, the tort of retaliatory discharge has been held to be a limited and narrow exception to this general rule. ( Fellhauer v. City of Geneva (1991), 142 Ill.2d 495 , 154 Ill.Dec. 649 , 568 N.E.2d 870 ; Thomas v. Zamberletti (1985), 134 Ill.

1992While the common law doctrine that an employer may discharge an at-will employee for any reason or for no reason is still the general rule in Illinois, the tort of retaliatory discharge has been held to be a limited and narrow exception to this general rule. ( Fellhauer v. City of Geneva (1991), 142 Ill.2d 495 , 154 Ill.Dec. 649 , 568 N.E.2d 870 ; Thomas v. Zamberletti (1985), 134 Ill.

2004"The tort of retaliatory discharge is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule that an at-will employee is terminable at any time for any or no cause." Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill.App.3d 694, 700 , 275 Ill.Dec. 648 , 793 N.E.2d 128, 133 (2003); Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 128 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981).

2004"The tort of retaliatory discharge is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule that an at-will employee is terminable at any time for any or no cause." Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill.App.3d 694, 700 , 275 Ill.Dec. 648 , 793 N.E.2d 128, 133 (2003); Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 128 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981).

2017People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 192 (2004).

2017People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 192 (2004).

2006People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 353 (2003).

2006People v, Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 353 (2003).

2004"The tort of retaliatory discharge is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule that an at-will employee is terminable at any time for any or no cause." Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill.App.3d 694, 700 , 275 Ill.Dec. 648 , 793 N.E.2d 128, 133 (2003); Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 128 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981).

2004“The tort of retaliatory discharge is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule that an at-will employee is terminable at any time for any or no cause.” Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill.

2003Plain errors are those that affect something that is “ ‘fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Keene, 169 Ill. 2d at 17 , 660 N.E.2d at 910 , quoting People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 456 , 386 N.E.2d 272, 278 (1979) (Ryan, J., specially concurring); see also People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 , 792 N.E.2d 1163, 1196 (2001) (reiterating that plain error is “a limited and narrow exception” to the waiver rule).

2003Plain errors are those that affect something that is “ ‘fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Keene, 169 Ill. 2d at 17 , 660 N.E.2d at 910 , quoting People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 456 , 386 N.E.2d 272, 278 (1979) (Ryan, J., specially concurring); see also People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 103 , 792 N.E.2d 1163, 1196 (2001) (reiterating that plain error is “a limited and narrow exception” to the waiver rule).

2022Rather, it is a limited and narrow exception ‘designed to redress serious injustices.’ ” People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 41 (quoting People v. Baker, 341 Ill.

2018"Rather, it is a limited and narrow exception 'designed to redress serious injustices.' " Id. (quoting People v. Baker , 341 Ill.

2007Hinthorn v. Roland’s of Bloomington, Inc., 119 Ill. 2d 526, 529 (1988).

1992(Hinthorn v. Roland’s of Bloomington, Inc. (1988), 119 Ill. 2d 526 , 519 N.E.2d 909 .) With these principles in mind, we now consider whether the plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.