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 1994–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2014"Additionally, an employer is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable rule by direct evidence, and a court may find the existence of a reasonable rule 'by a commonsense realization that certain conduct intentionally and substantially disregards an employer's interests.' " Id. (quoting Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. 2014“Additionally, an employer is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable rule by direct evidence, and a court may find the existence of a reasonable rule ‘by a commonsense realization that certain conduct intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interests.’ ” Id. (quoting Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. | 2 | 6 |
Stovall v. Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences1998Stovall v. Department of Employment Security, 262 Ill. 1998Stovall v. Department of Employment Security , 262 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Bandemer v. Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2000See Bandemer , 204 Ill. App. 3d at 195 . "[T]he employer is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable rule or policy by direct evidence, but the court may reach that determination by a commonsense realization that certain conduct intentionally and substantially disregards an employer's interests." Greenlaw , 299 Ill. App. 3d at 448 . 1994App. 3d 192, 195 , 562 N.E.2d 6, 7 , citing Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 501 , 475 N.E.2d 879 .) The existence of a reasonable rule or policy does not have to be proved by direct evidence, but can be found by a court to exist through a commonsense realization that some behavior intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interest. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meeks v. Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences1994Meeks v. Department of Employment Security (1990), 208 Ill. 1994(Meeks v. Department of Employment Security (1990), 208 Ill. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Garner v. Deparment of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2026The Garner court repeated the rule that “a rule is not reasonable unless it provides guidelines that are or should be known by the employee. [Citations.]” Garner, 269 Ill. 2026The employee asserted that the employer “failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable rule or policy under the circumstances presented.” Id. at 375 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Manning v. Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2014"Additionally, an employer is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable rule by direct evidence, and a court may find the existence of a reasonable rule 'by a commonsense realization that certain conduct intentionally and substantially disregards an employer's interests.' " Id. (quoting Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Woods v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2014“Additionally, an employer is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable rule by direct evidence, and a court may find the existence of a reasonable rule ‘by a commonsense realization that certain conduct intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interests.’ ” Id. (quoting Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lachenmyer v. Didrickson
green
1 sentence2012Moreover, an employer does not need to present direct evidence of the existence of a reasonable rule or policy; instead, a court can simply determine that such a policy exists through a common-sense realization that some behavior “intentionally and substantially disregards [the] employer’s interest.” Lachenmyer, 263 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Collier v. Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence1994App. 3d 988, 993 , 510 N.E.2d 623 .) The existence of a reasonable rule or policy does not have to be proved by direct evidence, but can be found by a court to exist through a common sense realization that some behavior intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interest. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor
yellow
2 sentences1994App. 3d 192, 195 , 562 N.E.2d 6, 7 , citing Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 501 , 475 N.E.2d 879 .) The existence of a reasonable rule or policy does not have to be proved by direct evidence, but can be found by a court to exist through a commonsense realization that some behavior intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interest. 1994App. 3d 192, 195 , 562 N.E.2d 6, 7 , citing Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 501 , 475 N.E.2d 879 .) The existence of a reasonable rule or policy does not have to be proved by direct evidence, but can be found by a court to exist through a commonsense realization that some behavior intentionally and substantially disregards an employer’s interest. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.