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 2013–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Boardgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill. 2d 541, 550 (1978). 2014See, e.g., Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill. 2d 541, 550 (1978). | 2 | 2 |
Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P. v. Gelbergreen2 sentences2014Despite the collateral-estoppel label that the Village attaches to its argument, we discern a collateral attack on the Board’s decision. ¶ 29 “A collateral attack on a judgment is an attempt to impeach that judgment in an action other than that in which it was rendered.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P. v. Gelber, 403 Ill. 2014Despite the collateral- estoppel label that the Village attaches to its argument, we discern a collateral attack on the Board’s decision. ¶ 29 “A collateral attack on a judgment is an attempt to impeach that judgment in an action other than that in which it was rendered.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P. v. Gelber, 403 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Lozman v. Putnamgreen2 sentences2018Laches ¶ 244 When reviewing a trial court’s determination as to whether the affirmative defense of laches applies to a case, an appellate court will reverse the decision only if the trial court’s decision was “ ‘so clearly wrong as to constitute an abuse of discretion.’ ” Lozman v. Putnam, 379 Ill. 2017LACHES ¶ 244 When reviewing a trial court's determination as to whether the affirmative defense of laches applies to a case, an appellate court will reverse the decision only if the trial court's decision was " 'so clearly wrong as to constitute an abuse of discretion.' " Lozman v. Putnam , 379 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Boardgreen2 sentences2022See Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 505 (2007). ¶ 52 In the present case, after reviewing the evidence presented at the Pension Board hearing and applying the legal principles set forth above, we conclude that the Pension Board’s finding— that Hutchinson was not disabled for service as a police officer—was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 2022See Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 505 (2007). ¶ 52 In the present case, after reviewing the evidence presented at the Pension Board hearing and applying the legal principles set forth above, we conclude that the Pension Board’s finding— that Hutchinson was not disabled for service as a police officer—was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Boardgreen2 sentences2022See Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . 2022See Marconi, 225 Ill. 2d at 534 . | 1 | 1 |
Dowrick v. Village of Downers Grovegreen2 sentences2013Dowrick v. Village of Downers Grove, 362 Ill. 2013Dowrick v. Village of Downers Grove, 362 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kramarski v. Board of Trustees of Orland Park Police Pension Fund
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 1047 . 2017Id. at 1047 , 341 Ill.Dec. 954 , 931 N.E.2d 851 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Mathews v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2018However, because neither party appealed the trial court’s ruling regarding the writ of mandamus, we will not be discussing it here. - 43 - argued that these three acts to create the funds and the issuance of bonds were unconstitutional because “they attempt to authorize taxation which is not needful and is for other than public or corporate purpose, in violation of [the Illinois Constitution].” Mathews, 342 Ill. at 127 . ¶ 241 In deciding the case, the Illinois Supreme Court found: “The amount of taxes and the rate of taxation are exclusively for the General Assembly and may be increased or de | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.