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.
10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Luis R.green2 sentences2017See Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d at 305 (subject- matter jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of a claim alleging the existence of a justiciable matter.) Whether or not the trial court should have considered Mark’s motion on the merits does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction. 2016See Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d at 305 (subject- matter jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of a claim alleging the existence of a justiciable matter.) Whether or not the trial court should have considered Mark’s motion on the merits does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction. | 3 | 3 |
McCormick v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2017See McCormick, 2015 IL 118230, ¶ 28 . 2017See McCormick, 2015 IL 118230, ¶ 28 . | 3 | 3 |
In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D.green2 sentences2017See id. ¶ 24 We note that Mark misrepresents the record by contending that he “moved to modify the child support obligation, only.” (Emphases in original.) Mark also argues that, “inexplicably, the trial court in Illinois then went beyond that [in that it] not only reduced (modified) child -8- 2016 IL App (2d) 150815 support, it also modified (without any request to do so) the maintenance (spousal support) award.” The record established that, although Mark’s motion was labeled, “Motion to Modify Child Support,” Mark alleged that his “spousal and child support obligations should be modified” an 2017See id. ¶ 24 We note that Mark misrepresents the record by contending that he “moved to modify the child support obligation, only.” (Emphases in original.) Mark also argues that, “inexplicably, the trial court in Illinois then went beyond that [in that it] not only reduced (modified) child support, it also modified (without any request to do so) the maintenance (spousal support) award.” The record established that, although Mark’s motion was labeled, “Motion to Modify Child Support,” Mark alleged that his “spousal and child support obligations should be modified” and asked the court to “[m]odi | 3 | 3 |
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.green2 sentences2021First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). -3- ¶ 12 We begin with Laura’s claims regarding the trial court’s downward modification of her maintenance award. 2020First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). ¶ 12 We begin with Laura’s claims regarding the trial court’s downward modification of her maintenance award. | 2 | 2 |
In re Marriage of Armstronggreen2 sentences2017See id. ¶ 24 We note that Mark misrepresents the record by contending that he “moved to modify the child support obligation, only.” (Emphases in original.) Mark also argues that, “inexplicably, the trial court in Illinois then went beyond that [in that it] not only reduced (modified) child -8- 2016 IL App (2d) 150815 support, it also modified (without any request to do so) the maintenance (spousal support) award.” The record established that, although Mark’s motion was labeled, “Motion to Modify Child Support,” Mark alleged that his “spousal and child support obligations should be modified” an 2016See id. ¶ 23 We note that Mark misrepresents the record by contending that he “moved to modify the child support obligation, only.” (Emphases in original.) Mark also argues that, “inexplicably, the trial court in Illinois then went beyond that [in that it] not only reduced (modified) child -8- 2016 IL App (2d) 150815 support, it also modified (without any request to do so) the maintenance (spousal support) award.” The record established that, although Mark’s motion was labeled, “Motion to Modify Child Support,” Mark alleged that his “spousal and child support obligations should be modified” an | 2 | 2 |
General Motors Corp. v. Pappasgreen1 sentence2023July 1, 2017)) and served on Wendy, stated that the appeal “involves a post-judgment ruling reforming a marital settlement agreement. [Mark] contends the circuit court did not have authority to reform the MSA and made findings that were against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Although the docketing statement merely provides this court with “general information about a case docketed in the court and it is not intended to replace the notice of appeal” (General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163, 178 (2011)), Mark’s docketing statement nonetheless provides further support for our holdi | 1 | 1 |
In Re Detention of Swopegreen1 sentence2023See In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004) (holding that “a party cannot complain of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented”). ¶ 46 Forfeiture aside, the trial court did hold a hearing and allowed Mark to testify. | 1 | 1 |
Foutch v. O'BRYANTgreen1 sentence2023See Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Johnsongreen1 sentence2023Setting aside whether this would undermine Mark’s defense (the quantum of proof for a section 2-1401 petition is merely a preponderance of the evidence and our standard of review is an abuse of discretion (In re Marriage of Johnson, 237 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp.green2 sentences2023Construing Mark’s notice of appeal liberally, as we must (Burtell, 76 Ill. 2d at 433 ), Mark clearly intended to appeal the trial court’s order dated January 7, 2022. 2023See Id. at 433-34 . | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Simardgreen1 sentence2023See Simard, 215 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Wojcikgreen1 sentence2021See Wojcik, 2018 IL App (1st) 170625, ¶¶ 27-28 . ¶ 59 We next point out that in Mark’s brief to this court he indicates there is great significance to the fact that Sandra stipulated that the inherited funds were nonmarital. | 1 | 1 |
Gibb v. Triezenberggreen1 sentence2000The trial court further found that, pursuant to Gibb v. Triezenberg, 188 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶ 36 Here, the trial court’s written order denying Mark’s motion to reconsider (the order dated September 21, 2021) was dated January 7, 2022, and there are no other orders in the trial court’s docket around January 6, 2022.4 Moreover, the docket of the circuit court reveals only an “Open Call” at 2 p.m. on January 6, 2022, which was the date of the hearing on Mark’s motion. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Marriage of Faber
green
1 sentence2016Accordingly, his argument that the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that any of the ESOP was marital is without merit. ¶ 19 We also find unavailing Mark’s claim that the “undisputed evidence” showed that he held a 29.45% nonmarital interest in the ESOP account such that “the only conclusion permitted by -8- 2016 IL App (2d) 131083 law and by the evidence is that 29.45% of the proceeds traceable to that non-marital ownership interest” was Mark’s nonmarital property. ¶ 20 At trial, Mareta testified that 29.45% of the total shares in Mark’s ESOP account as of December 31, 2011 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Zapp
neutral
1 sentence1964Co. v. Zapp, 209 Ill 339, 70 NE 623 , after reading an erroneous instruction to the jury, the court then said to the jury “I wish to modify that instruction; I will not give that instruction, gentler men of the jury.” The court then changed the mark on the instruction from' “given” to “refused,” and it was not allowed to go to the jury. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.