Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc.green2 sentences2016Defendant, however, argues we should apply de novo review. ¶ 23 The manifest weight of evidence standard is generally used to review a judgment after a bench trial (Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 Ill. 2016Defendant, however, argues we should apply de novo review. ¶ 23 The manifest weight of evidence standard is generally used to review a judgment after a bench trial (Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Wood v. Wabash Countygreen2 sentences2016Wood v. Wabash County, 309 Ill. 2016Wood v. Wabash County, 309 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Foutch v. O'BRYANTgreen2 sentences2016See Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92 . ¶ 33 A. Standard of Review ¶ 34 Defendant argues the standard of review is de novo because the questions before this court are “pure questions of law.” Plaintiff asserts this case should be reviewed under a manifest weight of evidence standard because “the trial court’s findings of fact [should] be reviewed deferentially.” ¶ 35 Generally, whether a contract implied in fact exists is a question of law, the determination of which is reviewed de novo. 2016See Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92 . ¶ 33 A. Standard of Review ¶ 34 Defendant argues the standard of review is de novo because the questions before this court are “pure questions of law.” Plaintiff asserts this case should be reviewed under a manifest weight of evidence standard because “the trial court’s findings of fact [should] be reviewed deferentially.” ¶ 35 Generally, whether a contract implied in fact exists is a question of law, the determination of which is reviewed de novo. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Deleongreen1 sentence2025Generally, when we review a circuit court’s factual determination on the existence of a predicate or qualifying offense at sentencing, we ask whether the finding is “against the manifest weight of the evidence.” See generally People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008) (reviewing a trial judge’s factual determination that consecutive sentences were warranted using the manifest weight of evidence standard); see also People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 20 (explaining “[q]uestions requiring the circuit court to make a factual finding are generally reviewed under the manifest weight of the evide | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morgangreen1 sentence2025Generally, when we review a circuit court’s factual determination on the existence of a predicate or qualifying offense at sentencing, we ask whether the finding is “against the manifest weight of the evidence.” See generally People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008) (reviewing a trial judge’s factual determination that consecutive sentences were warranted using the manifest weight of evidence standard); see also People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 20 (explaining “[q]uestions requiring the circuit court to make a factual finding are generally reviewed under the manifest weight of the evide | 1 | 1 |
Solar v. Weinberggreen1 sentence2017App. 3d 307, 313 (2009) (citing Solar v. Weinberg, 274 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc.green1 sentence2017For the following reasons, we employ a manifest-weight-of-evidence standard of review. ¶ 56 It is well settled that “[a] settlement agreement is in the nature of a contract and is governed by principles of contract law.” K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc., 394 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Demargreen1 sentence2015In re Marriage of Demar, 385 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
green
1 sentence2026Absent any such citation to legal authority or argument addressing this issue, we decline to discuss it further except to say that we find no basis in the medical evidence for concluding that causation was negated by any of these factors. ¶ 80 In conclusion, we are mindful that the manifest weight of evidence standard of review is highly deferential, but “ ‘the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.’ ” Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 465 (2009) (quoting Wade, 226 Ill. 2d at 507 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board
green
1 sentence2026Absent any such citation to legal authority or argument addressing this issue, we decline to discuss it further except to say that we find no basis in the medical evidence for concluding that causation was negated by any of these factors. ¶ 80 In conclusion, we are mindful that the manifest weight of evidence standard of review is highly deferential, but “ ‘the deference we afford the administrative agency’s decision is not boundless.’ ” Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, 234 Ill. 2d 446, 465 (2009) (quoting Wade, 226 Ill. 2d at 507 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Battaglia v. 736 N. Clark Corp.
green
1 sentence2025“The manifest weight of evidence standard is generally used to review a judgment after a bench trial [citation] because the trial judge, as a trier of fact, is in a superior position to observe witnesses, judge their credibility, and determine the weight their testimony should receive.” Battaglia v. 736 N. Clark Corp., 2015 IL App (1st) 142437, ¶ 23 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Marriage of Yabush
green
1 sentence2024In re Marriage of Yabush, 2021 IL App (1st) 201136, ¶ 28 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
O'Malley v. Udo
green
1 sentence2023Presumptions of the circuit court’s correctness is especially strong where, as here, the written order indicated that the court was “fully advised in the premises.” O’Malley v. Udo, 2022 IL App (1st) 200007, ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.