11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Calvary Baptist Church v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2008See also Calvary Baptist Church of Tilton, 349 Ill. 2008See also Calvary Baptist Church of Tilton, 349 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Eden Retirement Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2008The supreme court decided that because the case required "an examination of the legal effect of a given set of facts, it [presented] a mixed question of fact and law" and the supreme court would review the agency's decision for clear error (City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205 , 692 N.E.2d at 302 )--not de novo, as the supreme court previously had held. -4- Later, in Eden Retirement Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 213 Ill. 2d 273, 284 , 821 N.E.2d 240, 246 (2004), the supreme court seemed to revert to the former rule: it prescribed a de novo standard of review when the facts were undis 2008The supreme court decided that because the case required "an examination of the legal effect of a given set of facts, it [presented] a mixed question of fact and law" and the supreme court would review the agency's decision for clear error (City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205 , 692 N.E.2d at 302 )--not de novo, as the supreme court previously had held. -4- Later, in Eden Retirement Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 213 Ill. 2d 273, 284 , 821 N.E.2d 240, 246 (2004), the supreme court seemed to revert to the former rule: it prescribed a de novo standard of review when the facts were undis | 2 | 2 |
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green1 sentence2021We may reverse a decision for clear error only if we are “ ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395 (2001) (quoting United States v. Unites States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). ¶ 15 Under Section 602(A)(3) of the Act, an employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he or she (1) knowingly and repeatedly violated an attendance policy, (2) the policy was reasonable and complied with state and federal law, (3) the employer gave the employee a written warn | 1 | 1 |
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2021We may reverse a decision for clear error only if we are “ ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395 (2001) (quoting United States v. Unites States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). ¶ 15 Under Section 602(A)(3) of the Act, an employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he or she (1) knowingly and repeatedly violated an attendance policy, (2) the policy was reasonable and complied with state and federal law, (3) the employer gave the employee a written warn | 1 | 1 |
Rhodda Thompson v. Altheimer & Graygreen1 sentence2011Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621, 624-25 (7th Cir.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2014Provena, 236 Ill. 2d at 387 . ¶6 For mixed questions of law and fact, "i.e., where the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard," we review the agency's decision for clear error. 2014Provena, 236 Ill. 2d at 387 . ¶6 For mixed questions of law and fact, “i.e., where the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard,” we review the agency’s decision for clear error. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2008The supreme court decided that because the case required “an examination of the legal effect of a given set of facts, it [presented] a mixed question of fact and law” and the supreme court would review the agency’s decision for clear error (City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205 , 692 N.E.2d at 302 ) — not de novo, as the supreme court previously had held. 2008The supreme court decided that because the case required “an examination of the legal effect of a given set of facts, it [presented] a mixed question of fact and law” and the supreme court would review the agency’s decision for clear error (City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205 , 692 N.E.2d at 302 ) — not de novo, as the supreme court previously had held. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2019Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority , 2015 IL App (1st) 142458 , ¶ 15, 394 Ill.Dec. 289 , 35 N.E.3d 1258 . 2019Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority , 2015 IL App (1st) 142458 , ¶ 15, 394 Ill.Dec. 289 , 35 N.E.3d 1258 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2014Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., 381 Ill. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2011(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carpetland U.S.A., 201 Ill. 2d at 369 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Faith Builders Church, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2008The supreme court stated: "[T]he Department's decision as to whether [the] plaintiff's property is exempt from taxation depends solely on the application of the appropriate legal standard to the undisputed facts, which is a question of law." Accordingly, in a recent property-tax exemption case, we dutifully echoed the supreme court: " '[T]he Department's decision as to whether [the] plaintiff's property is exempt from taxation depends solely on the application of the appropriate legal standard to the undisputed facts, which is a question of law.' " Faith Builders Church, Inc. v. Department of | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.