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.
17 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 9 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 Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2025“Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.” Davis v. Yenchko, 2024 IL 129751, ¶ 16 . “ ‘The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.’ In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1989). ‘In deciding whether a party has standing, a court must look at the party to see if he or she will be benefitted by the relief granted.’ Id. at 280 . 2025“The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.” In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1989). | 9 | 9 |
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Community Unit School District No. 200green2 sentences2022App. 3d 743, 747-48 (1977) (the purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Community Unit School District No. 200, 44 Ill. 2022App. 3d 743, 747-48 (1977) (the purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Community Unit School District No. 200, 44 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Bowergreen2 sentences2021Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n. -6- 1-21-0225 v. Bower, 325 Ill. 2009Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n v. Bower, 325 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Palkesgreen2 sentences2014In order to have standing to bring a constitutional challenge, a person must show himself to be within the class aggrieved by the alleged unconstitutionality. [Citation.] 'The general rule is that courts will not consider the validity of a statutory provision unless the person challenging the provision is directly affected by it or the unconstitutional feature is so pervasive as to render the entire statute invalid.' Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d at 482; People v. Palkes, 52 Ill. 2d 472 , 480 3 1-10-0866-B (1972). *** Rather, a person must be directly or materially affected by the attacked provision and 2014In order to have standing to bring a constitutional challenge, a person must show himself to be within the class aggrieved by the alleged unconstitutionality. [Citation.] ‘The general rule is that courts will not consider the validity of a statutory provision unless the person challenging the provision is directly affected by it or the unconstitutional feature is so pervasive as to render the entire statute invalid.’ Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d at 482; People v. Palkes, 52 Ill. 2d 472, 480 (1972). *** Rather, a person must be directly or materially affected by the attacked provision and must be in imm | 1 | 2 |
People v. Morganred1 sentence2025“The general rule is that courts will not consider the validity of a statutory provision unless the person challenging the provision is directly affected by it or the unconstitutional feature is so pervasive as to render the entire statute invalid.” People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470, 482 (2003), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005). “[A] party has standing to bring a constitutional challenge only if the party is able to show himself to be within the class aggrieved by the alleged unconstitutionality.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Glazewski v. Coronet Insurance Co.green1 sentence2025In Illinois, ‘[s]tanding requires some injury in fact to a legally recognized interest.’ Glazewski v. Coronet Insurance Co., 108 Ill. 2d 243, 254 (1985). | 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 M.I.
green
2 sentences2023As Aylissa has not been impacted by that provision, she lacks standing to challenge it. ¶ 75 “ ‘The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re M.I., 2013 IL 113776, ¶ 32 . 2022As Aylissa has not been impacted by that provision, she lacks standing to challenge it. ¶ 77 “ ‘The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.” In re M.I., 2013 IL 113776, ¶ 32 . | 4 | 2015–2023 |
Davis v. Yenchko
green
1 sentence2025“Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.” Davis v. Yenchko, 2024 IL 129751, ¶ 16 . “ ‘The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.’ In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1989). ‘In deciding whether a party has standing, a court must look at the party to see if he or she will be benefitted by the relief granted.’ Id. at 280 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2025“The general rule is that courts will not consider the validity of a statutory provision unless the person challenging the provision is directly affected by it or the unconstitutional feature is so pervasive as to render the entire statute invalid.” People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470, 482 (2003), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005). “[A] party has standing to bring a constitutional challenge only if the party is able to show himself to be within the class aggrieved by the alleged unconstitutionality.” Id. 2025“The general rule is that courts will not consider the validity of a statutory provision unless the person challenging the provision is directly affected by it or the unconstitutional feature is so pervasive as to render the entire statute invalid.” People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470, 482 (2003), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005). “[A] party has standing to bring a constitutional challenge only if the party is able to show himself to be within the class aggrieved by the alleged unconstitutionality.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bartlow v. Costigan
green
1 sentence2024Bartlow v. Costigan, 2014 IL 115152 , ¶ 17. ¶ 17 “The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies, and not abstract questions or moot issues.” In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1989). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Unifund Ccr Partners v. Mohammad Shah
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lynch v. Devine
green
1 sentence1989(Lynch v. Devine (1977), 45 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.