13 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Deangreen2 sentences2019Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460 (citing Diederich v. Walters, 65 Ill. 2d 95, 100-01 (1976)). ¶ 11 The party challenging a presumption must adduce evidence “ ‘sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact.’ ” Id. at 463 (quoting Michael H. 2019People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 17 ; Gilbert v. National Cash Register Co., 176 Ill. 288, 297 (1898) (“The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property.”). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. “[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the pres | 3 | 4 |
Gilbert v. National Cash Register Co.green2 sentences2019People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 17 ; Gilbert v. National Cash Register Co., 176 Ill. 288, 297 (1898) (“The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property.”). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. “[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the pres 2018People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency , 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 , ¶ 17, 352 Ill.Dec. 33 , 952 N.E.2d 1259 ; Gilbert v. National Cash-Register Co. , 176 Ill. 288 , 297, 52 N.E. 22 (1898) ("The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property."). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. "[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary | 2 | 2 |
Diederich v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2019Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460 (citing Diederich v. Walters, 65 Ill. 2d 95, 100-01 (1976)). ¶ 11 The party challenging a presumption must adduce evidence “ ‘sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact.’ ” Id. at 463 (quoting Michael H. 2019Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460 (citing Diederich v. Walters, 65 Ill. 2d 95, 100-01 (1976)). ¶ 11 The party challenging a presumption must adduce evidence “ ‘sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact.’ ” Id. at 463 (quoting Michael H. | 1 | 2 |
Swiecicki v. Swiecickigreen2 sentences2019People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 17 ; Gilbert v. National Cash Register Co., 176 Ill. 288, 297 (1898) (“The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property.”). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. “[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the pres 2018People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency , 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 , ¶ 17, 352 Ill.Dec. 33 , 952 N.E.2d 1259 ; Gilbert v. National Cash-Register Co. , 176 Ill. 288 , 297, 52 N.E. 22 (1898) ("The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property."). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. "[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murgic v. Granite City Trust & Savings Bank
green
2 sentences2014The burden switches to the party challenging the presumption of a gift because “[t]he legislative policy to treat the joint account as a useful technique for transferring intangibles dictates that the estate or other person claiming against the survivor should have the burden of disproving intent on the part of the decedent.” Murgic, 31 Ill. 2d at 590-91 . 2014The burden switches to the party challenging the presumption of a gift because “[t]he legislative policy to treat the joint account as a useful technique for transferring intangibles dictates that the estate or other person claiming against the survivor should have the burden of disproving intent on the part of the decedent.” Murgic, 31 Ill. 2d at 590-91 . | 5 | 2006–2014 |
People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars
green
2 sentences2019People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 17 ; Gilbert v. National Cash Register Co., 176 Ill. 288, 297 (1898) (“The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property.”). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. “[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the pres 2018People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,850) United States Currency , 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 , ¶ 17, 352 Ill.Dec. 33 , 952 N.E.2d 1259 ; Gilbert v. National Cash-Register Co. , 176 Ill. 288 , 297, 52 N.E. 22 (1898) ("The party in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner of it, possession being one of the strongest evidences of title to personal property."). ¶ 10 But if the party challenging the presumption of ownership arising from possession presents evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption ceases to exist. "[O]nce evidence is introduced contrary | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Harvard State Bank v. County of McHenry
green
1 sentence1994Harvard State Bank v. County of McHenry (1993), 251 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Tim Thompson, Inc. v. Village of Hinsdale
green
1 sentence1994(Tim Thompson, Inc. v. Village of Hinsdale (1993), 247 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hamann v. Sumichrast
green
1 sentence1993(Hamann v. Sumichrast (1991), 222 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook
green
2 sentences1980Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid; the party challenging the presumption has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the ordinance is “arbitrary, capricious or unrelated to the public health, safety and morals.” (La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 46 , 145 N.E.2d 65, 68 .) La Salle (1957) listed the following six considerations as bearing on the validity of a zoning ordinance: (1) The uses and zoning of surrounding property; (2) the effect of the challenged ordinance on the value of the property in question; (3) the degree to which 1980Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid; the party challenging the presumption has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the ordinance is “arbitrary, capricious or unrelated to the public health, safety and morals.” (La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 46 , 145 N.E.2d 65, 68 .) La Salle (1957) listed the following six considerations as bearing on the validity of a zoning ordinance: (1) The uses and zoning of surrounding property; (2) the effect of the challenged ordinance on the value of the property in question; (3) the degree to which | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.
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.