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 1 courts 1991–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manning v. Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2023See id. ¶¶ 26-28; Manning v. Department of Employment Security, 365 Ill. 2017See id. ¶¶ 26-28; Manning v. Department of Employment Security, 365 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Garner v. Deparment of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2024A reasonable work rule “provides guidelines that are or should be known by the employee.” Garner v. Department of Employment Security, 269 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Boardgreen1 sentence2021Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 21 ; Thomas, 2014 IL App (1st) 122402, ¶ 39 (this standard applies when the facts are admitted or established, the controlling rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal standard); Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 211 (2008) (whether a given set of facts satisfies the applicable legal standard is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed under the largely deferential clear error standard). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Chicago Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2021Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 21 ; Thomas, 2014 IL App (1st) 122402, ¶ 39 (this standard applies when the facts are admitted or established, the controlling rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal standard); Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 211 (2008) (whether a given set of facts satisfies the applicable legal standard is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed under the largely deferential clear error standard). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cannici v. Illinois Department of Employment Security Board of Review
green
2 sentences2026Cannici v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review, 2021 IL App (1st) 181562, ¶ 41 . 2024Under the Act, an employee was discharged for misconduct if “(1) the employer had a reasonable work rule, (2) the employee deliberately and willfully violated the rule, and (3) the violation either was repeated by the employee despite a prior warning or harmed the employer.” Cannici v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review, 2021 IL App (1st) 181562, ¶ 41 . ¶ 69 The employer has the burden of proving that the employee was discharged for misconduct, which is a “higher burden” than merely proving that the employee “should have been rightly discharged.” (Internal quotation marks omitte | 4 | 2022–2026 |
Petrovic v. The Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2024Under the Act, an employee was discharged for misconduct if “(1) the employer had a reasonable work rule, (2) the employee deliberately and willfully violated the rule, and (3) the violation either was repeated by the employee despite a prior warning or harmed the employer.” Cannici v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review, 2021 IL App (1st) 181562, ¶ 41 . ¶ 69 The employer has the burden of proving that the employee was discharged for misconduct, which is a “higher burden” than merely proving that the employee “should have been rightly discharged.” (Internal quotation marks omitte 2021Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 21 ; Thomas, 2014 IL App (1st) 122402, ¶ 39 (this standard applies when the facts are admitted or established, the controlling rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal standard); Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 211 (2008) (whether a given set of facts satisfies the applicable legal standard is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed under the largely deferential clear error standard). | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Woods v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2021Chisem v. McCarthy, 2014 IL App (1st) 132389, ¶ 21 ; Woods, 2012 IL App (1st) 101639, ¶ 16 . ¶ 43 However, the ultimate issue of whether an employee was discharged for misconduct—by deliberately and willfully violating a reasonable work rule and harming his employer—presents a mixed question of fact and law, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. 2021Under the Act, an employee was discharged for misconduct if, as relevant here, (1) the employer had a reasonable work rule, (2) the employee deliberately and willfully violated the rule, and (3) the violation either was repeated by the employee despite a prior warning or harmed the employer. 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2016); Woods v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2012 IL App (1st) 101639, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chisem v. McCarthy
green
1 sentence2021Chisem v. McCarthy, 2014 IL App (1st) 132389, ¶ 21 ; Woods, 2012 IL App (1st) 101639, ¶ 16 . ¶ 43 However, the ultimate issue of whether an employee was discharged for misconduct—by deliberately and willfully violating a reasonable work rule and harming his employer—presents a mixed question of fact and law, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
DeBois v. Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2002DeBois v. Department of Employment Security, 274 Ill. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Glasper v. Board of Review
neutral
1 sentence1994(Glasper v. Board of Review (1991), 218 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kennedy v. Edgar
green
1 sentence1991App. 3d 138, 143-46 , 556 N.E.2d 830 .) The violation of a reasonable work rule, as here, is misconduct which disqualifies an employee from receiving unemployment compensation. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wilson v. Department of Employment Security
green
1 sentence1991(Wilson v. Department of Employment Security (1990), 196 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.