Supreme Court announced test in Illinois

2026II, XIV) “protect the right of an - 35 - ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense” and “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 8-10 (2022) (citing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)). ¶ 98 “In Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a test for assessing the constitutional validity of laws seeking to regulate conduct protected by the second amendment.” People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶ 15 .

2025II, XIV) “protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense,” as well as “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 8-10 (2022) (citing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)). ¶ 32 “In Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a test for assessing the constitutional -8- validity of laws seeking to regulate conduct protected by the second amendment.” People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428, ¶ 15 .

2007Neil, 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 34 L.

2007Neil, 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 34 L.

2016In Kyllo, the Supreme Court announced the rule: “ ‘Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.’ ” Jardines, 569 U.S. at ___ , 133 S. Ct. at 1419 (Kagan, J., concurring, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ.) (quoting Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 40 ).

1995Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .

1995Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .

1992In People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 545 , 442 N.E.2d 255 , the supreme court announced the rule and the reason for it: “A court’s witness, or any witness for that matter, cannot be impeached by prior inconsistent statements unless his testimony has damaged, rather than failed to support the position of the impeaching party.

1992In People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 545 , 442 N.E.2d 255 , the supreme court announced the rule and the reason for it: “A court’s witness, or any witness for that matter, cannot be impeached by prior inconsistent statements unless his testimony has damaged, rather than failed to support the position of the impeaching party.

1990In Gibellina the court announced that effective February 22, 1989, the date of filing of the opinion, “the trial court may hear and decide a motion which has been filed prior to a section 2—1009 motion when that motion, if favorably ruled on by the court, could result in a final disposition of the case.” (Emphasis in original.) (Gibellina, 127 Ill. 2d at 137-38 , 535 N.E.2d at 866 .) The supreme court announced this rule in response to what it perceived as the myriad abusive uses by plaintiffs of their statutory right to voluntary dismissal under section 2—1009 of the Code, and the legislature

1990In Gibellina the court announced that effective February 22, 1989, the date of filing of the opinion, “the trial court may hear and decide a motion which has been filed prior to a section 2—1009 motion when that motion, if favorably ruled on by the court, could result in a final disposition of the case.” (Emphasis in original.) (Gibellina, 127 Ill. 2d at 137-38 , 535 N.E.2d at 866 .) The supreme court announced this rule in response to what it perceived as the myriad abusive uses by plaintiffs of their statutory right to voluntary dismissal under section 2—1009 of the Code, and the legislature

1970In Davis, supra, the Supreme Court announced the rule that a common carrier would be held to a standard of ordinary care to its patrons with regard to stations and other nonconveyance appurtenances.

1934The Supreme Court announced the rule in the case of United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476 , wherein it said: “Conveying less than title to the patent or part of it, the patentee may grant a license to make, use and vend articles under the specifications of his patent for any royalty or upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure.

1929In Springer v. Darlington, 198 Ill. 121 , at page 124, the Supreme Court announced the rule in such cases in the following words: ‘ ‘ The doctrine of res adjudicata is not limited to those things which are actually pleaded and litigated, but it extends to every other matter properly involved in the litigation which might have been raised and determined in it.” See also Bennett v. Star Mining Co., 119 Ill. 9 .

1929In Springer v. Darlington, 198 Ill. 121 , at page 124, the Supreme Court announced the rule in such cases in the following words: ‘ ‘ The doctrine of res adjudicata is not limited to those things which are actually pleaded and litigated, but it extends to every other matter properly involved in the litigation which might have been raised and determined in it.” See also Bennett v. Star Mining Co., 119 Ill. 9 .