11 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zee Jay, Inc. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fundgreen2 sentences2004“The court must consider all the circumstances of the proceedings and liberally construe the scope of relief available to prevent an unjust result. [Citation.] The court will consider whether some meritorious position exists so that vacatur of the order will not be a useless act; whether some particular hardship will result from vacating the order; and whether some reasons exist for the failure to present a defense in apt time. [Citation.] These determinations must be made within the framework of the legal philosophy that litigation should be determined on its merits if possible and according 2004"The court must consider all the circumstances of the proceedings and liberally construe the scope of relief available to prevent an unjust result. [Citation.] The court will consider whether some meritorious position exists so that vacatur of the order will not be a useless act; whether some particular hardship will result from vacating the order; and whether some reasons exist for the failure to present a defense in apt time. [Citation.] These determinations must be made within the framework of the legal philosophy that litigation should be determined on its merits if possible and according | 3 | 4 |
People v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2025See Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d at 121 . | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2024See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (trial counsel “has a duty to make reasonable investigations or reasonable decisions that make particular investigations unnecessary”); People v. Domogala, 2013 IL 113668 , ¶ 38; Upshaw, 2017 IL App (1st) 151405, ¶ 39 . ¶ 68 A failure to investigate a possible defense is different than a failure to present a defense at trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Upshawgreen2 sentences2024See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (trial counsel “has a duty to make reasonable investigations or reasonable decisions that make particular investigations unnecessary”); People v. Domogala, 2013 IL 113668 , ¶ 38; Upshaw, 2017 IL App (1st) 151405, ¶ 39 . ¶ 68 A failure to investigate a possible defense is different than a failure to present a defense at trial. 2024See Upshaw, 2017 IL App (1st) 151405, ¶ 39 ; People v. Wilborn, 2011 IL App (1st) 092802, ¶¶ 96-97 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mieszkowski v. Norville
green
2 sentences1990(Cf. Mieszkowski v. Norville (1965), 61 Ill. 1966Mieszkowski v. Norville, supra, 298 . | 2 | 1966–1990 |
Regner v. Hoover
green
2 sentences1939Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34, page 67; Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 , or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill., 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. 1939(Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 .) The courts are reluctant to subject decrees to review by this method, and the cases are comparatively few in which relief may thus be obtained. ’ ’ The cases all hold that an error in a decree brought about by consent of the parties, or error existing because of the failure to present a defense where the opportunity was offered, or error which would require the examination of the evidence, or error which would amount to use of the bill of review as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error, or where the party has been guilty o | 2 | 1938–1939 |
Hoffman v. Knox
green
2 sentences1939Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34, page 67; Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 , or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill., 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. 1939(Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 .) The courts are reluctant to subject decrees to review by this method, and the cases are comparatively few in which relief may thus be obtained. ’ ’ The cases all hold that an error in a decree brought about by consent of the parties, or error existing because of the failure to present a defense where the opportunity was offered, or error which would require the examination of the evidence, or error which would amount to use of the bill of review as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error, or where the party has been guilty o | 2 | 1938–1939 |
Stasel v. American Home Security Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1939Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34, page 67; Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 , or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill., 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. 1938Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34 (p. 67); Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 ) or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill. 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. | 2 | 1938–1939 |
Harrican v. County of Peoria
neutral
2 sentences1939Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34, page 67; Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 , or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill., 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. 1938Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34 (p. 67); Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 ) or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill. 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. | 2 | 1938–1939 |
Vyverberg v. Vyverberg
neutral
2 sentences1939Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34, page 67; Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 , or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill., 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. 1938Jun. 173 English Reports, Full Reprint, vol. 34 (p. 67); Vyverberg v. Vyverberg, 310 Ill. 599 ; Regner v. Hoover, 318 Ill. 169 ; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 484 ) or errors resulting from a failure to present a defense existing at the time a judgment or decree is entered (Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 Ill. 36 ; Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 279 Ill. | 2 | 1938–1939 |
People v. Wilborn
green
1 sentence2024See Upshaw, 2017 IL App (1st) 151405, ¶ 39 ; People v. Wilborn, 2011 IL App (1st) 092802, ¶¶ 96-97 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re County Treasurer
green
1 sentence2005App. 3d 993, 1003 (1996). “ ‘The court must consider all the circumstances of the proceedings and liberally construe the scope of relief available to-prevent an unjust result. [Citation.] The court will consider whether some meritorious position exists so that vacatur of the order will not be a useless act; whether some particular hardship will result from vacating the order; and whether some reasons exist for the failure to present a defense in apt time. [Citation.] These determinations must be made within the framework of the legal philosophy that litigation should be determined on its merit | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Guasti
green
1 sentence1990App. 3d 484 , 386 N.E.2d 291 .) The court will consider whether some meritorious position exists so that vacatur of the order will not be a useless act; whether some particular hardship will result from vacating the order; and whether some reasons exist for the failure to present a defense in apt time. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gundersen v. Rainbow Cleaners & Laundry, Inc.
green
2 sentences1971Even if appellants had filed a timely motion to vacate *409 the judgment pursuant to section 50(5), the denial of that motion would not, in my judgment, constitute an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case. "* * * [E]ven in cases under section 50(6) [now section 50(5)], as noted in Mieszkowski , the court, in exercising its discretion in determining whether a default judgment should be set aside in the furtherance of justice, must ascertain whether some reason exists for the failure to present the defense in apt time and whether some meritorious defense does exist." ( Gunders 1971Even if appellants had filed a timely motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to section 50(5), the denial of that motion would not, in my judgment, constitute an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case. “* * * [E]ven in cases under section 50(6) [now section 50(5)], as noted in Mieszkowski, the court, in exercising its discretion in determining whether a default judgment should be set aside in the furtherance of justice, must ascertain whether some reason exists for the failure to present the defense in apt time and whether some meritorious defense does exist.” (Gundersen v. R | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.