12 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Shirleygreen2 sentences2026Where, as here, the defendant was afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present a motion for reduced sentencing, we see limited value in requiring a repeat of the exercise, absent a good reason to do so.” Id. at 369 . ¶ 50 Here, although defendant places great importance on his IDOC medical records, he has not shown that their absence resulted in an unfair hearing on his motion to vacate his guilty plea or - 16 - No. 1-24-2437 deprived him of a full and fair hearing. 2024See People v. Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188, ¶ 16 , 966 N.E.2d 375 . “[A] defendant seeking to withdraw his plea is entitled to a hearing that is meaningful, but only in the very limited sense that it is not a mere charade.” (Emphasis omitted.) Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188 , ¶ 14. ¶ 32 In People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 369 , 692 N.E.2d 1189, 1194 (1998), our supreme court rejected the premise the strict-compliance standard must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant multiple remands and new hearings following an initial remand for Rule 604(d) comp | 3 | 4 |
People v. Tejada-Sotogreen2 sentences2026See People v. Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188, ¶ 16 . “[A] defendant seeking to withdraw his plea is entitled to a hearing that is meaningful, but only in the very limited sense that it is not a mere charade performed for the purpose of reinstating an appeal.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 14. 2026Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188 , ¶ 16. | 3 | 4 |
In re Emma L.green2 sentences2024For the following reasons, we agree with Lindsey. ¶ 38 “The constitutional guarantee of due process is implicated whenever the State engages in conduct towards its citizens deemed oppressive, arbitrary[,] or unreasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Emma L., 2023 IL App (5th) 230138, ¶ 31 (quoting Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, ¶ 29 ). 2023For the following reasons, we agree with Lindsey. ¶ 39 “The constitutional guarantee of due process is implicated whenever the State engages in conduct towards its citizens deemed oppressive, arbitrary, or unreasonable.” (Internal quotation marks and alteration omitted.) In re Emma L., 2023 IL App (5th) 230138, ¶ 31 (quoting Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, ¶ 29 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. TEJADA-SOTOgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188, ¶ 16 , 966 N.E.2d 375 . “[A] defendant seeking to withdraw his plea is entitled to a hearing that is meaningful, but only in the very limited sense that it is not a mere charade.” (Emphasis omitted.) Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188 , ¶ 14. ¶ 32 In People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 369 , 692 N.E.2d 1189, 1194 (1998), our supreme court rejected the premise the strict-compliance standard must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant multiple remands and new hearings following an initial remand for Rule 604(d) comp | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wingert v. Hradisky
green
2 sentences2024For the following reasons, we agree with Lindsey. ¶ 38 “The constitutional guarantee of due process is implicated whenever the State engages in conduct towards its citizens deemed oppressive, arbitrary[,] or unreasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Emma L., 2023 IL App (5th) 230138, ¶ 31 (quoting Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, ¶ 29 ). 2023For the following reasons, we agree with Lindsey. ¶ 39 “The constitutional guarantee of due process is implicated whenever the State engages in conduct towards its citizens deemed oppressive, arbitrary, or unreasonable.” (Internal quotation marks and alteration omitted.) In re Emma L., 2023 IL App (5th) 230138, ¶ 31 (quoting Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, ¶ 29 ). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Gigger v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners
green
2 sentences1977It is an established principal that the decision of an administrative agency will be set aside if the prejudice or bias of a hearing officer results in an unfair hearing (Gigger v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1959), 23 Ill. 1977App. 2d 433 , 163 N.E.2d 541 ), but mere familiarity with the facts of a case does not disqualify a decisionmaker (Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Association (1976), _ U.S. _, 49 L. | 2 | 1974–1977 |
Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. Pollution Control Board
green
1 sentence2009Citizens, 255 Ill. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Abrahamson v. Department of Professional Regulation
green
1 sentence1992The hearing deteriorated into an unfair hearing and would justify a reversal and remandment for a new hearing.” 210 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence1977App. 2d 433 , 163 N.E.2d 541 ), but mere familiarity with the facts of a case does not disqualify a decisionmaker (Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Association (1976), _ U.S. _, 49 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.