nondeferential de novo standard (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

nondeferential de novo standard in Illinois

13 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Franz v. Calaco Development Corp.green
illappct · 2004 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005"In Illinois, a judge's or jury's findings of fact in a civil case are generally accorded manifest-weight review," but "[a] judge's rulings of law in a civil or criminal case are reviewed under the nondeferential de novo standard." Franz v. Calaco Development Corp. , 352 Ill.

2005“In Illinois, a judge’s or jury’s findings of fact in a civil case are generally accorded manifest-weight review,” but “[a] judge’s rulings of law in a civil or criminal case are reviewed under the nondeferential de novo standard.” Franz v. Calaco Development Corp., 352 Ill.

22
People v. Lamborngreen
ill · 1999 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021People v. Lamborn, 185 Ill. 2d 585, 590 (1999).

11
In Re Marriage of Rifegreen
illappct · 2007 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009Unfortunately, Pekin is correct that the case law regarding the proper standard of review for declaratory judgments is full of contradictory statements and is “disturbingly rich in *** misapplications of sound precedent.” In re Marriage of Rife, 376 Ill.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board green
ill · 2008
2 sentences

2011Cinkus, 228 Ill.2d at 210-11 , 319 Ill.Dec. 887 , 886 N.E.2d 1011 .

2011Cinkus, 228 Ill.2d at 210-11 , 319 Ill.Dec. 887 , 886 N.E.2d 1011 .

42008–2011
Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co. green
ill · 2004
2 sentences

2008Adams, 211 Ill. 2d at 43 .

2008Adams, 211 Ill. 2d at 43 .

22008–2008
Goldberg v. Michael green
illappct · 2002
2 sentences

2004See 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2000)); Goldberg v. Michael, 328 Ill.

2004See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2000)); Goldberg v. Michael, 328 Ill.

22004–2004
City of Chicago v. Old Colony Partners, L.P. green
illappct · 2006
1 sentence

2008City of Chicago, 364 Ill.

12008–2008

Where else courts name it

IL 13 (2004–2021) CA 9 (1988–2019) UT 2 (2021–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check