substance rule in Illinois

2025The language used by the trial court was not the exact language employed by the rule; however, the trial court’s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule.” Id.

2024On appeal, the court found that the admonishments were sufficient, as they reflected “that a court-appointed attorney would be available for defendant”; despite the fact that “[t]he language used by the trial court was not the exact language employed by the rule,” the court found that “the trial court’s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule.” Id. at 882 . ¶ 23 Dominguez found the admonishment before it comparable to those in J.T. and Dunn, noting that, as in those cases, “the trial court arguably did not explicitly inform defendant that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed

2025Thus, like in those cases, the trial court’s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule to [the] defendant and complied with Rule 605(c).” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 51 . ¶ 19 The Domiguez court was not unaware that the analogy to J.T. was imperfect.

2024Although a trial court need not use the exact language of Rule 605(c), it must still convey the substance of the rule. 5 No. 1-23-0395 People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 18 (defining substantial compliance as conveying the rule’s essence); People v. Perry, 2014 IL App (1st) 122584, ¶ 15 .

2022“The character or nature of the court and the relief available to a plaintiff are derived from the substance of the claim before it.” Id. at 579 .

2007Continental Casualty Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 286 Ill.

2023However, the “extraneous” reference to a motion to modify or reconsider the sentence, “read in context,” did not provide a basis for reversal “where the trial court conveyed the substance of the rule and put defendant on notice of the necessity of first filing a postplea motion within 30 days”; the defendant indicated his understanding of this prerequisite; yet the defendant “failed to file any type of postplea motion and instead filed a notice of appeal.” Id. (citing In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338, 347-48 (2006) (the admonitions to the respondent that he had 30 days to appeal and that, if he wis

2012See J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 366 (Freeman, J., dissenting) (“As the appellate court noted, ‘[t]rial courts are held to strict compliance with Rule 605(c) requirements. [Citation.] Although the trial court is not required to use the exact language of the rule, the admonitions are insufficient where the trial court leaves out the substance of the rule.’ ” (quoting In re J.T., 347 Ill.

1972People v. Landgham, 122 Ill.App.2d 9, 22 , 257 N.E.2d 484, 491 ; United States v. Vanterpool, 394 F.2d 697, 98, 99 (2dCir.).

1971App.2d 9 ; United States v. Vanterpool, 394 F.2d 697, 8, 9 (2d Cir.).) In People v. Bosveld, 109 Ill.

2020If they are good enough for a direct claim against Drake, they are good enough for a respondeat superior claim against his employers for that very same conduct. ¶ 32 It is true that counts II and VI were titled “Negligence—Respondeat Superior.” That did not help matters, but the title of a count has never controlled over the substance of the claim. “[T]he character of [a] pleading should be determined from its content, not its label.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, ¶ 64 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 67 ). “[C]ourts should loo

2018If they are good enough for a direct claim against Drake, they are good enough for a respondeat superior claim against his employers for that very same conduct. ¶ 32 It is true that Counts 2 and 6 were titled “Negligence—Respondeat Superior.” That did not help matters, but the title of a count has never controlled over the substance of the claim. “[T]he character of [a] pleading should be determined from its content, not its label.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, ¶ 64 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 67 ). “[C]ourts should look

2020App. 3d 572, 578-79 (1997) (the relief available to a plaintiff is derived from the substance of the claim before it); Koehler v. The Packer Group, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 142767, ¶ 75 (specific performance is not available as of right but rests in the trial court’s sound discretion based on all of the facts and circumstances in evidence).

2020App. 3d 572, 578-79 (1997) (the relief available to a plaintiff is derived from the substance of the claim before it); Koehler v. The Packer Group, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 142767, ¶ 75 (specific performance is not available as of right but rests in the trial court’s the sound discretion based on all of the facts and circumstances in evidence).

2020See Tzakis v. Berger Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 170859, ¶ 59 (“[T]he title of the count does not control over the substance of its claim.”). -2- of their status” as well as the Department’s policy on report preparation, which Murphy described as requiring reporting incidents including, inter alia, breaches of security. ¶5 Masters filed a response to Murphy’s motion to dismiss, arguing that there were questions of fact that needed to be resolved and the Tort Immunity Act did not apply.

2020See Tzakis v. Berger Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 170859, ¶ 59 (“[T]he title of the count does not control over the substance of its claim.”).

2020If they are good enough for a direct claim against Drake, they are good enough for a respondeat superior claim against his employers for that very same conduct. ¶ 32 It is true that counts II and VI were titled “Negligence—Respondeat Superior.” That did not help matters, but the title of a count has never controlled over the substance of the claim. “[T]he character of [a] pleading should be determined from its content, not its label.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, ¶ 64 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 67 ). “[C]ourts should loo

2018If they are good enough for a direct claim against Drake, they are good enough for a respondeat superior claim against his employers for that very same conduct. ¶ 32 It is true that Counts 2 and 6 were titled “Negligence—Respondeat Superior.” That did not help matters, but the title of a count has never controlled over the substance of the claim. “[T]he character of [a] pleading should be determined from its content, not its label.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, ¶ 64 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 67 ). “[C]ourts should look

2019See People v. Lobdell, 2017 IL App (3d) 150074, ¶ 37 (holding that either the words “ineffective assistance” or the substance of a claim was enough to require a preliminary inquiry).

2018See People v. Lobdell , 2017 IL App (3d) 150074 , ¶ 37, 416 Ill.Dec. 4 , 83 N.E.3d 502 (holding that either the words "ineffective assistance" or the substance of a claim was enough to require a preliminary inquiry).

2023See Papadakis v. Fitness 19 IL 116, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 170388, ¶ 21 .

2019Papadakis v. Fitness 19 IL 116, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 170388 , ¶ 32.

2012See J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 366 (Freeman, J., dissenting) (“As the appellate court noted, ‘[t]rial courts are held to strict compliance with Rule 605(c) requirements. [Citation.] Although the trial court is not required to use the exact language of the rule, the admonitions are insufficient where the trial court leaves out the substance of the rule.’ ” (quoting In re J.T., 347 Ill.

2006As the appellate court noted, "[t]rial courts are held to strict compliance with Rule 605(c) requirements. [Citation.] Although the trial court is not required to use the exact language of the rule, the admonitions are insufficient where the trial court leaves out the substance of the rule." 347 Ill.App.3d at 536, 283 Ill.Dec. 466 , 808 N.E.2d 16 .

2026See People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 215 (2010) (finding that two exchanges between the defendant and the trial court were sufficient to assess the basis of his claim where the court was familiar with the substance of the claim). ¶ 31 Moreover, during a preliminary inquiry, the trial court may assess defendant’s ineffectiveness claims “based on its knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations.” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 12 .

2026See People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 215 (2010) (finding that two exchanges between the defendant and the trial court were sufficient to assess the basis of his claim where the court was familiar with the substance of the claim). ¶ 31 Moreover, during a preliminary inquiry, the trial court may assess defendant’s ineffectiveness claims “based on its knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations.” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 12 .

2025See People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶¶ 24-27 . ¶ 12 Patterson fell into the third category, as he has been detained since his arrest.