manifest weight standard in Illinois

2026He explained that even in controlled environments, patients often exhibit behavior that is consistent with child sex abuse such as acquiring child pornography or developing relationships with immature looking inmates. ¶ 36 “Under the manifest weight standard, we give deference to the *** finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses [Citation.] A reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the [trier of fact] regarding the credibility of witnesses ***.” Best, 223 Ill. 2d at 350-51 .

2026Lisa stated Stacey had done “very hard things” to improve her life, including counseling, seeking medical help, becoming part of a church family, and working two different jobs. ¶ 57 “Under the manifest weight standard, we give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses.” Best, 223 Ill. 2d at 350 .

2026Although we agree with Logan that, when reviewing an administrative agency’s decision, our deference under the manifest-weight standard of review “is not boundless” (see Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 507 (2007)), each of the arguments presented by Logan on appeal relates to the weight of evidence, the credibility of witnesses or the resolution of conflicting evidence.

2025This court acknowledged the deferential standard of review but quoted Wade for the proposition that, “ ‘[e]ven under the manifest weight standard applicable in this instance, the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.’ ” Id. (quoting Wade, 226 Ill. 2d at 507 ).

2025The clearly erroneous standard sits on the standard-of-review spectrum somewhere “between the manifest weight standard and de novo standard, so as to provide ‘some deference’ to the agency decision.” AFM Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 392 (quoting City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205 (1998)).

2023City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205 (1998) Under the manifest weight standard, we do not disturb the Board’s findings unless the opposite conclusion is clearly -3- evident.

2025“A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. [Citation.] Under the manifest weight standard, we give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses. [Citation.] A reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to the evidence, or the inferences t

2024“Under the manifest weight standard, we give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses.” Id.

2014Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . ¶ 68 Although we afford considerable weight to an agency’s factual and credibility determinations, nonetheless “ ‘[e]ven under the manifest weight standard applicable in this instance, the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.’ ” Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 465 (2009) (quoting Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 507 (2007)). “[O]ur review cannot amount to a rubber stamp of the proceedings below merely because the Board heard witnesses

2014Our supreme court has observed that “[e]ven under the manifest weight standard *** the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.” Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 507 (2007); see also Bowlin v. Murphysboro Firefighters Pension Board of Trustees, 368 Ill.

2026See Carrillo v. Park Ridge Firefighters’ Pension Fund, 2014 IL App (1st) 130656, ¶ 22 (where the sole issue is “whether a work-related incident is a cause of a claimant’s disability, this is a purely factual determination,” subject to review under the manifest weight of the evidence standard); Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 472 (2009) (causation is an issue of fact for the Board’s consideration.); see also Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . ¶ 56 Under the manifest weight standard, we will overturn the administrative decisio

2025Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 532-33 . ¶ 30 In this case, the Board contends that the appropriate standard of review for us to apply is the manifest-weight standard, as plaintiff’s eligibility for a duty disability benefit is a question of fact.

2026Moreover, in child custody cases, “ ‘wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.L., 226 Ill.

2026Moreover, in child custody cases, “ ‘wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater -4- degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.L., 226 Ill.

2024As we explained in In re R.S., 382 Ill. App. 3d 453, 459-60 (2008), “wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied” because of “the delicacy and difficulty of child custody cases.” 14 (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted.) See In re E.S., 324 Ill. App. 3d 661 , 667 (2001) (noting that “[t]he trial court is given broad discretion and great deference in matters involving minors”). ¶ 59 To treat the trial court’s adjudicatory findings here as if they were made based solely

2021Because of the “delicacy and difficulty of child custody cases, it is well settled that wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re R.S., 382 Ill.

2023When this court reviews a case under the manifest weight standard, “we give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses and has a degree of familiarity with the evidence that a reviewing court cannot possibly obtain.” In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 , 777 N.E.2d 930, 943 (2002).

2023When this court reviews a case under the manifest weight standard, “we give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses and has a degree of familiarity with the evidence that a reviewing court cannot possibly obtain.” In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 , 777 N.E.2d 930, 943 (2002).

2026See Carrillo v. Park Ridge Firefighters’ Pension Fund, 2014 IL App (1st) 130656, ¶ 22 (where the sole issue is “whether a work-related incident is a cause of a claimant’s disability, this is a purely factual determination,” subject to review under the manifest weight of the evidence standard); Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 472 (2009) (causation is an issue of fact for the Board’s consideration.); see also Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . ¶ 56 Under the manifest weight standard, we will overturn the administrative decisio

2025This court acknowledged the deferential standard of review but quoted Wade for the proposition that, “ ‘[e]ven under the manifest weight standard applicable in this instance, the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.’ ” Id. (quoting Wade, 226 Ill. 2d at 507 ).

2024But see People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (holding that the standard of review should be abuse of discretion); People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (same); People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020 , ¶¶ 35-36 (holding that first two elements should be reviewed using the manifest weight standard, while the third should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

2024People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 29 ; but see People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (holding that standard of review should be abuse of discretion); People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (same); and People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020 , ¶ 35-36 (holding that first two elements should be reviewed using the manifest weight standard, while the third should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

2026That said, “ ‘the manifest weight standard is not a rubber stamp’ ” and “ ‘does not require mindless acceptance in the reviewing court.’ ” People v. Harris, 2021 IL App (1st) 182172 , ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Anderson, 303 Ill.

2025It does not require mindless acceptance in the reviewing court.’ ” People v. Harris, 2021 IL App (1st) 182172, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Anderson, 303 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 1057 (1999); see also Mahan v. Marion Police Pension Board, 2023 IL App (5th) 210426, ¶ 29 (manifest weight review is a “considerably deferential standard,” but appellate court review “cannot amount to a rubber stamp” of the proceedings merely because the trial court heard witnesses, reviewed evidence, and made findings).

2024See People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 (applying “twofold” review: the manifest weight standard for the trial court’s factual findings and abuse of discretion to the ultimate determination regarding pretrial release).

2024See People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 (applying “twofold” review: the manifest weight standard for the trial court’s factual findings and abuse of discretion to the ultimate determination regarding pretrial release).

2022Moreover, in child custody cases, “ ‘wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Martin, 31 Ill.

2008Further, "due to the `delicacy and difficulty of child custody cases,' it is well settled `"that wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied."'" In re Lakita B., 297 Ill.App.3d 985, 994 , 232 Ill.Dec. 88 , 697 N.E.2d 830 (1998), quoting In re D.L., 226 Ill.App.3d 177, 185 , 168 Ill.Dec. 280 , 589 N.E.2d 680 (1992), quoting In re Martin, 31 Ill.App.3d 288, 293 , 333 N.E.2d 711 (1975).

2024But see People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (holding that the standard of review should be abuse of discretion); People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (same); People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020 , ¶¶ 35-36 (holding that first two elements should be reviewed using the manifest weight standard, while the third should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

2024People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 29 ; but see People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (holding that standard of review should be abuse of discretion); People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (same); and People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020 , ¶ 35-36 (holding that first two elements should be reviewed using the manifest weight standard, while the third should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

2006In re D.M., 336 Ill.

2006In re D.M., 336 Ill.

2024Under the manifest weight standard, we give great deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations “because the fact finder is in the best position to evaluate the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses.” Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530, 548 (2007).

2023Similarly, “[u]nder the manifest weight standard, a trial court’s decision in a bench trial is subject to considerable deference” and “[a] reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.” In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 82 (citing Samour, 224 Ill. 2d at 548 ).

2026In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363-66 (2004). ¶ 29 A. Fitness Determination ¶ 30 A trial court’s determination of unfitness is normally reviewed under the manifest weight standard.

2024The standard “requires proof greater than a preponderance, but not quite approaching the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 362 (2004). ¶ 45 This court has traditionally reviewed cases in which a party bears the burden of proving facts by clear and convincing evidence under the manifest weight standard.

2025In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill.

2023Id.; In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill.App.3d 173, 177 (2002). ¶ 27 We review the circuit court’s award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.

2024See People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 ; People v. Inman, 3 Defendant does not challenge the second prong, that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of the victim based on the facts of this case. 5 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 ; People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 9 (reviewing the trial court’s pretrial release determination for an abuse of discretion); but see People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 29 (applying a manifest weight standard); People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009 , ¶¶ 44-45 (applying a two-tiered approach). ¶ 16 Defendant ar

2024See People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 ; People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 9 (reviewing the trial court’s pretrial release determination for an abuse of discretion); but see People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 29 (applying a manifest weight standard); People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009 , ¶¶ 44-45 (applying a two-tiered approach). ¶ 14 For the reasons to follow, we cannot say the court’s determination that defendant must remain in county jail pending trial was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or that no person could agree with the court’s deter

2026In re Marriage of Fatkin, 2019 IL 123602 , ¶ 32. ¶ 57 “Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s ruling if there is any basis in the record to support the trial court’s findings.” In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171 , ¶ 24. “ ‘A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the court’s findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.’ ” Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048 , ¶ 47 (quoting In re Marriage of Verhines, 2018 IL App (2d) 171034, ¶ 51 ).

2025In re Marriage of Fatkin, 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32 . ¶ 62 “Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s ruling if there is any basis in the record to support the trial court’s findings.” In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 24 . “ ‘A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the court’s findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.’ ” Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 47 (quoting In re Marriage of Verhines, 2018 IL App (2d) 171034, ¶ 51 ).

2026See Carrillo v. Park Ridge Firefighters’ Pension Fund, 2014 IL App (1st) 130656, ¶ 22 (where the sole issue is “whether a work-related incident is a cause of a claimant’s disability, this is a purely factual determination,” subject to review under the manifest weight of the evidence standard); Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 472 (2009) (causation is an issue of fact for the Board’s consideration.); see also Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . ¶ 56 Under the manifest weight standard, we will overturn the administrative decisio

2025This is a “purely factual determination which we review under the manifest weight of the evidence standard.” Id. ¶ 17 Under the manifest weight standard, we reverse the administrative decision “only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shirley, 2024 IL App (3d) 230257, ¶ 20 .

2021Neither of these arguments have merit. 27 Nos. 1-20-0247 & 1-20-0271 (cons.) ¶ 61 As we have long recognized, the jury’s finding on punitive damages, is a “fact-sensitive undertaking that should be reviewed under a manifest-weight standard.” Franz v. Calaco Development Corp., 352 Ill.

2014See Franz v. Calaco Development Corp., 352 Ill. App. 3d 1129, 1137-38 (2004) (for a bench trial, whether punitive damages should be awarded is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the trial court's finding that defendant's conduct was not willful or malicious is reviewed under a manifest-weight standard). ¶ 57 In its May 16, 2011 order, the trial court found that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to rebut the presumption of undue influence against the Taylors and Michael during the relevant times they owed a fiduciary duty to Erla.

2026Moreover, in child custody cases, “ ‘wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.L., 226 Ill.

2026Moreover, in child custody cases, “ ‘wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to an even greater -4- degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.L., 226 Ill.

2024“Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s ruling if there is any basis in the record to support the trial court’s findings.” In re V.S., 2023 IL App (1st) 220817, ¶ 64 . ¶ 40 “If the trial court determines that a minor is abused or neglected at the adjudicatory hearing, the court then moves to step two, which is the dispositional hearing.” In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931 , - 11 - 1-23-1727 ¶ 60 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2018)).

2024“Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s ruling if there is any basis in the record to support the trial court’s findings.” In re V.S., 2023 IL App (1st) 220817, ¶ 64 . ¶ 39 “If the trial court determines that a minor is abused or neglected at the adjudicatory hearing, the court then moves to step two, which is the dispositional hearing.” In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 60 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2018)).

2024See, e.g., People v. Rodriquez, 2023 IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 112 The manifest-weight standard is a deferential one, grounded in the notion that the trial court is in a superior position to determine the weight and credibility of witness testimony, observe witnesses’ demeanor, and resolve conflicts in the evidence.

2024See, e.g., People v. Rodriquez, 2023 IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 81 The majority here adopts a hybrid of both, arguing that a review of the first two findings (sufficiency of proof of crime and whether the accused poses a danger) is under the manifest- weight standard, but the third prong (whether sufficient conditions exist to mitigate the danger) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.