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.
11 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pullen v. Mulligangreen2 sentences1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement "`substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.'" McDunn, 156 Ill.2d at 312 , 189 Ill.Dce. 417, 620 N.E.2d 385 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill.2d 191, 198 , 233 N.E.2d 345 (1968). "`Applying the initialling [ sic ] requirement to in-precinct ballots is ce 1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec | 2 | 4 |
Craig v. Petersongreen2 sentences1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement "`substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.'" McDunn, 156 Ill.2d at 312 , 189 Ill.Dce. 417, 620 N.E.2d 385 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill.2d 191, 198 , 233 N.E.2d 345 (1968). "`Applying the initialling [ sic ] requirement to in-precinct ballots is ce 1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec | 2 | 4 |
DeFabio v. Gummer-Sheimergreen2 sentences2008In DeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 192 Ill. 2d 63, 66-67 (2000), our supreme court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the initialing requirement of section 24A — 10.1 of the Election Code. 2008Dec. 243 , 733 N.E.2d 1241 (2000), our supreme court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the initialing requirement of section 24A — 10.1 of the Election Code. | 2 | 2 |
McDunn v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec 1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec | 2 | 2 |
Slenker v. Engelgreen2 sentences1999The initials of a judge in his handwriting are for the purpose of identifying the ballot, but if the ballot can be fully identified, even in the absence of the initials, and it is shown that it was cast by a *549 legal voter, it should be counted.'" McDunn, 156 Ill.2d at 353 , 189 Ill.Dec. 417 , 620 N.E.2d 385 (Freeman, J., dissenting), quoting Slenker v. Engel, 250 Ill. 499, 511-12 , 95 N.E. 618 (1911) (Carter, C.J., dissenting). 1999The initials of a judge in his handwriting are for the purpose of identifying the ballot, but if the ballot can be fully identified, even in the absence of the initials, and it is shown that it was cast by a legal voter, it should be counted.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 353 (Freeman, J., dissenting), quoting Slenker v. Engel, 250 Ill. 499, 511-12 (1911) (Carter, C.J., dissenting). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Laird v. Williams
green
2 sentences1980(See, e.g., Laird v. Williams (1917), 281 Ill. 233 , 118 N.E. 73 ; Morandi v. Heiman (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 365 , 178 N.E.2d 314 .) We simply hold, consistently with Craig v. Peterson, that the initialing requirement is directory where uninitialed absentee ballots are positively identified as having been validly cast, and there is no suggestion of fraud or voting by unqualified persons. 1980(See, e.g., Laird v. Williams (1917), 281 Ill. 233 , 118 N.E. 73 ; Morandi v. Heiman (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 365 , 178 N.E.2d 314 .) We simply hold, consistently with Craig v. Peterson, that the initialing requirement is directory where uninitialed absentee ballots are positively identified as having been validly cast, and there is no suggestion of fraud or voting by unqualified persons. | 3 | 1980–2000 |
Lacy v. Rhodes
neutral
2 sentences1942Vance v. Bushu , 288 id. 277.) The circuit court properly excluded the proof offered by the appellant respecting the forty-nine ballots lacking the initials of a judge of election and it correctly decided that none of them should have been counted." This court further, in the recent case of Barlick v. Kunz , 375 Ill. 318 , citing the case of Lacy v. Rhodes, supra , as authority, held that the initialing requirement of ballots is mandatory, and that while the rule that mistakes or omissions of officers in charge of election will not defeat the plainly expressed will of the voters, such rule is 1940Stat. 1939, chap. 46, par. 470, p. 1517,) prescribes that the ballot of an absent voter shall be endorsed “in like manner as other ballots are required to be endorsed.” The initialing requirement, it is established, is mandatory, (Lacy v. Rhodes, 369 Ill. 167 ; Sibley v. Staiger, 347 id. 288 ;) it applies to the ballots of absent voters (Greene v. Bjorseth, 350 Ill. 469 ; McCreery v. Burnsmier, 293 id. 43;) and ballots, as here, which do not bear such initials cannot be counted for any candidate. | 2 | 1940–1942 |
Morandi v. Heiman
green
2 sentences1980(See, e.g., Laird v. Williams (1917), 281 Ill. 233 , 118 N.E. 73 ; Morandi v. Heiman (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 365 , 178 N.E.2d 314 .) We simply hold, consistently with Craig v. Peterson, that the initialing requirement is directory where uninitialed absentee ballots are positively identified as having been validly cast, and there is no suggestion of fraud or voting by unqualified persons. 1980(See, e.g., Laird v. Williams (1917), 281 Ill. 233 , 118 N.E. 73 ; Morandi v. Heiman (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 365 , 178 N.E.2d 314 .) We simply hold, consistently with Craig v. Peterson, that the initialing requirement is directory where uninitialed absentee ballots are positively identified as having been validly cast, and there is no suggestion of fraud or voting by unqualified persons. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Barlick v. Kunz
neutral
1 sentence1942Vance v. Bushu , 288 id. 277.) The circuit court properly excluded the proof offered by the appellant respecting the forty-nine ballots lacking the initials of a judge of election and it correctly decided that none of them should have been counted." This court further, in the recent case of Barlick v. Kunz , 375 Ill. 318 , citing the case of Lacy v. Rhodes, supra , as authority, held that the initialing requirement of ballots is mandatory, and that while the rule that mistakes or omissions of officers in charge of election will not defeat the plainly expressed will of the voters, such rule is | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Greene v. Bjorseth
green
1 sentence1940Stat. 1939, chap. 46, par. 470, p. 1517,) prescribes that the ballot of an absent voter shall be endorsed “in like manner as other ballots are required to be endorsed.” The initialing requirement, it is established, is mandatory, (Lacy v. Rhodes, 369 Ill. 167 ; Sibley v. Staiger, 347 id. 288 ;) it applies to the ballots of absent voters (Greene v. Bjorseth, 350 Ill. 469 ; McCreery v. Burnsmier, 293 id. 43;) and ballots, as here, which do not bear such initials cannot be counted for any candidate. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Allen v. Fuller
neutral
1 sentence1940(Sibley v. Staiger, supra; Allen v. Fuller, 332 Ill. 304 .) The familiar rule that mistakes or omissions of the officers in charge of an election will not defeat the plainly expressed will of the voters is inapplicable where the officers have failed to perform mandatory duties of a precautionary character which safeguard the votes of the electors. | 1 | 1940–1940 |