concern doctrine in Illinois

2010Our supreme court embodied this concern in the analysis from the very beginning upon its adoption of the doctrine in Torres: “In recognizing the discretion of the trial court to dismiss a case within its jurisdiction when a more appropriate intrastate forum is available and when maintenance of the action in the original forum causes unnecessary hardship to the defendant and other interested parties, we hope to promote fair play between plaintiffs and defendants and discourage the incessant jockeying for a more sympathetic jury likely to come forward with a more substantial award.” Torres, 98 I

2010Our supreme court embodied this concern in the analysis from the very beginning upon its adoption of the doctrine in Torres: “In recognizing the discretion of the trial court to dismiss a case within its jurisdiction when a more appropriate intrastate forum is available and when maintenance of the action in the original forum causes unnecessary hardship to the defendant and other interested parties, we hope to promote fair play between plaintiffs and defendants and discourage the incessant jockeying for a more sympathetic jury likely to come forward with a more substantial award.” Torres, 98 I

1994Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 .

1983(Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) In Lord v. Hubert (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 83 , 145 N.E.2d 77 , that inquiry was explicated to mean “any action taken by the litigant which recognizes the case as in court will amount to a general appearance unless such action was for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) ( 12 Ill. 2d 83, 87 .) The Lord test has been followed in subsequent decisions.

2022The concern is that a rule requiring the automatic appointment of new counsel would make it “ ‘too easy for criminal defendants to get rid of their court-appointed lawyers, delay their trials, or obtain reversals of their convictions.’ ” Id. at 814 (quoting ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct, at 51:406-51:407 (Feb. 28, 1990)); see also People v. Hardeman, 203 Ill.

1995(See Naujokas, 25 Ill. 2d at 35-36 .) Of course, neither circumstance would operate to negate resulting prejudice, a central concern to the claim Keene raises.

1995(See Naujokas, 25 Ill.2d at 35-36 , 182 N.E.2d 700 .) Of course, neither circumstance would operate to negate resulting prejudice, a central concern to the claim Keene raises.

1983(Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) In Lord v. Hubert (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 83 , 145 N.E.2d 77 , that inquiry was explicated to mean “any action taken by the litigant which recognizes the case as in court will amount to a general appearance unless such action was for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) ( 12 Ill. 2d 83, 87 .) The Lord test has been followed in subsequent decisions.

1983(Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) In Lord v. Hubert (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 83 , 145 N.E.2d 77 , that inquiry was explicated to mean “any action taken by the litigant which recognizes the case as in court will amount to a general appearance unless such action was for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) ( 12 Ill. 2d 83, 87 .) The Lord test has been followed in subsequent decisions.

1978The concern of this doctrine is to prevent the admission of evidence “obtained from or as a consequence of lawless official acts, not evidence obtained from an ‘independent source.’ ” Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 280 , 5 L.

1978The concern of this doctrine is to prevent the admission of evidence “obtained from or as a consequence of lawless official acts, not evidence obtained from an ‘independent source.’ ” Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 280 , 5 L.

1977According to International Shoe, “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation *** became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction.” Shaffer v. Heitner (1977), 433 U.S. 186, 204 , 53 L.

1977According to International Shoe, “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation *** became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction.” Shaffer v. Heitner (1977), 433 U.S. 186, 204 , 53 L.

1962It was pointed out in Jepsen v. Board of Education, 19 Ill App2d 204, 153 NE2d 417 , the statute on dismissal is silent as to what constitutes cause, and that therefore the right to determine the question in the first instance is in the tribunal having jurisdiction of the teachers.