cursory analysis in Illinois

2014Id. at 590 . ¶ 89 Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 2005 PA Super 221 , the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial judge’s decision to admit comparison microscope analysis (albeit following a more cursory hearing than in Fleming), ruling the methodology was generally accepted within the scientific community consisting of firearms experts and a number of significant governmental bodies within and without Pennsylvania.

2013Id. at 101-02 .

2025This cursory analysis of the potential or probability of bias in this case is unpersuasive. ¶ 87 Although the appellate court in this case did find that the circuit court misapplied the actual innocence test under Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 59 , that fact did not form the basis for its conclusion that there was a probability of bias in this case.

2025Indeed, the appellate court correctly noted that legal “error alone is almost never a sufficient basis for reassignment.” 2023 IL App (1st) 200903, ¶ 91 .

2014Id. at 590 . ¶ 89 Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 2005 PA Super 221 , the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial judge’s decision to admit comparison microscope analysis (albeit following a more cursory hearing than in Fleming), ruling the methodology was generally accepted within the scientific community consisting of firearms experts and a number of significant governmental bodies within and without Pennsylvania.

1996The majority in the instant case concludes that because defendant was a child in school, he had a lowered expectation of privacy. ( 169 Ill.2d at 209 , 214 Ill.Dec. at 464 , 661 N.E.2d at 318 .) This arbitrary and somewhat simplistic holding, however, fails to consider the factor the Vernonia Court found most relevant to this issue: defendant's privacy interest in relation to the State's role in conducting the search.

1996The majority in the instant case concludes that because defendant was a child in school, he had a lowered expectation of privacy. ( 169 Ill.2d at 209 , 214 Ill.Dec. at 464 , 661 N.E.2d at 318 .) This arbitrary and somewhat simplistic holding, however, fails to consider the factor the Vernonia Court found most relevant to this issue: defendant's privacy interest in relation to the State's role in conducting the search.

1992Instead, plaintiff claimed that its reliance on a title report comment that the property “was vacant but appeared to be habitable” constituted “due inquiry.” This court disagreed, describing plaintiff’s attempts as “no more than a cursory inquiry.” (Bell, 59 Ill.

1992App. 3d at 928 , 376 N.E.2d at 1033 .) In so deciding, we noted that plaintiff failed to locate defendant among neighbors or ascertain where defendant worked.

1992The State indicated that it did not anticipate adducing that type of testimony, thereby negating the need for such hearing prior to trial.) After conducting a cursory analysis of the statute and case law, including People v. Salas (1985), 138 Ill.

1992App. 3d 48 , 485 N.E.2d 596 , the judge determined that a section 115 — 10 hearing was appropriate.

1981App. 3d 362, 368 , 380 N.E.2d 15 .) Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that a contract entitled “Exclusive Listing for Termination of Lease” is a listing contract, when more than a cursory analysis of the contract is done, it becomes clear that this title does not accurately describe the contents of the agreement.

1978In City of Chicago v. Leakas, (1st Dist. 1972), 6 Ill.

1941In defining a representative suit in Hale v. Hale, 146 Ill. 227 , the court said at p. 257: “A familiar illustration may be found in cases where the parties are so numerous that it is inconvenient or impossible to bring them all before the court, and it appears that they all stand in the same situation, and have one common right or one common interest, the operation and protection of which will be for the common benefit of all, and cannot be to the injury- of any.” Discussing the requisites for the institution of a representative suit in Lee v. Hansberry, 372 Ill. 369 , the court said at p. 37

1941In defining a representative suit in Hale v. Hale, 146 Ill. 227 , the court said at p. 257: “A familiar illustration may be found in cases where the parties are so numerous that it is inconvenient or impossible to bring them all before the court, and it appears that they all stand in the same situation, and have one common right or one common interest, the operation and protection of which will be for the common benefit of all, and cannot be to the injury- of any.” Discussing the requisites for the institution of a representative suit in Lee v. Hansberry, 372 Ill. 369 , the court said at p. 37