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 1980–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foutch v. O'BRYANTgreen2 sentences2021“Any doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392 (1984). 2008As the appellant, Raymond "has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings [in the trial court] to support a claim of error." Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389, 391 , 76 Ill.Dec. 823 , 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Janesgreen1 sentence2024See Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33 (requiring strict compliance with Rule 604(d)). | 1 | 1 |
Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist.green1 sentence2023Since this court reviews de novo an order of dismissal pursuant to section 2-619 (Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 377 (2003)), we do not need the transcripts of the hearing below to review the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal. ¶ 28 A section 2-619 motion to dismiss assumes the allegations of the complaint are true but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2020); Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc., v. City of Waukegan, 276 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc. v. City of Waukegangreen1 sentence2023Since this court reviews de novo an order of dismissal pursuant to section 2-619 (Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 377 (2003)), we do not need the transcripts of the hearing below to review the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal. ¶ 28 A section 2-619 motion to dismiss assumes the allegations of the complaint are true but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2020); Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc., v. City of Waukegan, 276 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospitalgreen2 sentences2012On review, the question is “ ‘whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal, or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law.’ ” Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 109-10 , 708 N.E.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1999) (quoting Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116-17 , 619 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1993)). 2012On review, the question is “ ‘whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal, or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law.’ ” Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 109-10 , 708 N.E.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1999) (quoting Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116-17 , 619 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2012On review, the question is “ ‘whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal, or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law.’ ” Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 109-10 , 708 N.E.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1999) (quoting Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116-17 , 619 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1993)). 2012On review, the question is “ ‘whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal, or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law.’ ” Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 109-10 , 708 N.E.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1999) (quoting Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116-17 , 619 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Coady v. Harpo, Inc.green1 sentence2012App. 3d 153, 158 , 719 N.E.2d 244, 248 (1999)), we do not need the transcripts of the hearing below to review the propriety of the circuit court’s dismissal. | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Dorangreen2 sentences2005We, therefore, rely on Ely’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, his memorandum of law in support of the petition, and the transcripts from the hearing on the petition. 2 In the context of a habeas corpus proceeding where the historical facts are “readily verifiable” (Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 , 58 L. 2005We, therefore, rely on Ely’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, his memorandum of law in support of the petition, and the transcripts from the hearing on the petition. 2 In the context of a habeas corpus proceeding where the historical facts are “readily verifiable” (Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 , 58 L. | 1 | 1 |
Poltrock v. CHICAGO & NORTH WEST. TRANSP. CO.green2 sentences1992App. 3d at 254-55, 502 N.E.2d at 1203.) Here, Roberts specifically stated he was not seeking to have these statements admitted under the business records exception and the transcripts of the hearing were not admitted. 1992As in Poltrock, the summaries of defendant's employees' statements were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." ( Amos, 191 Ill.App.3d at 646 , 138 Ill.Dec. at 871 , 548 N.E.2d at 101 .) (See also Poltrock, 151 Ill.App.3d at 254-55 , 104 Ill.Dec. at 543 , 502 N.E.2d at 1203 .) Here, Roberts specifically stated he was not seeking to have these statements admitted under the business records exception and the transcripts of the hearing were not admitted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rissley
green
1 sentence2003ANALYSIS In People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (2003), our supreme court once again addressed the principles relating to postconviction proceedings. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Little v. Tuscola Stone Co.
green
1 sentence1995App. 3d 726 , 600 N.E.2d 1270 .) It appears from the transcripts of the hearing that Southeastern was given an adequate opportunity to present its case and that it offered no evidence which the Regional Board refused to consider. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Mullen
green
2 sentences1992Having fully reviewed the transcripts of the hearing on his motion to suppress the confession and of the trial proceedings, we see no evidence that his confession was involuntary or that he had some motivation to confess falsely, as was present in People v. Mullen (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 394 , 566 N.E.2d 222 (defendant’s confession indicated he feared gang retaliation, and, due to numerous conflicts in testimony, the evidence was closely balanced), on which Andras relies. 1992Having fully reviewed the transcripts of the hearing on his motion to suppress the confession and of the trial proceedings, we see no evidence that his confession was involuntary or that he had some motivation to confess falsely, as was present in People v. Mullen (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 394 , 566 N.E.2d 222 (defendant’s confession indicated he feared gang retaliation, and, due to numerous conflicts in testimony, the evidence was closely balanced), on which Andras relies. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Amos v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1992As in Poltrock, the summaries of defendant's employees' statements were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." ( Amos, 191 Ill.App.3d at 646 , 138 Ill.Dec. at 871 , 548 N.E.2d at 101 .) (See also Poltrock, 151 Ill.App.3d at 254-55 , 104 Ill.Dec. at 543 , 502 N.E.2d at 1203 .) Here, Roberts specifically stated he was not seeking to have these statements admitted under the business records exception and the transcripts of the hearing were not admitted. 1992As in Poltrock, the summaries of defendant's employees' statements were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." ( Amos, 191 Ill.App.3d at 646 , 138 Ill.Dec. at 871 , 548 N.E.2d at 101 .) (See also Poltrock, 151 Ill.App.3d at 254-55 , 104 Ill.Dec. at 543 , 502 N.E.2d at 1203 .) Here, Roberts specifically stated he was not seeking to have these statements admitted under the business records exception and the transcripts of the hearing were not admitted. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Poltrock v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence1992As in Poltrock, the summaries of defendant's employees' statements were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." ( Amos, 191 Ill.App.3d at 646 , 138 Ill.Dec. at 871 , 548 N.E.2d at 101 .) (See also Poltrock, 151 Ill.App.3d at 254-55 , 104 Ill.Dec. at 543 , 502 N.E.2d at 1203 .) Here, Roberts specifically stated he was not seeking to have these statements admitted under the business records exception and the transcripts of the hearing were not admitted. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Madden
green
1 sentence1980App. 3d 107 , 372 N.E.2d 851 .) Having read the transcripts of defense counsel’s cross-examination of the witness, we do not believe that a reasonable individual would agree with the assistant State’s Attorney’s characterization of defense counsel’s presentation of his case. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.