summary factors (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

summary factors in Illinois

10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2025 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Alan A. Booth, Counter-Defendant v. Hume Publishing, Inc., and the Hume Group, Inc., Counter-Claimantsgreen
ca11 · 1990 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012We turn to the reasons for the circuit court's dismissal of Tyler's five-count counterclaim. ¶ 25 "Actions to confirm arbitration awards * * * are straightforward proceedings in which no other claims are to be adjudicated." Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 377 (2d Cir.1987). "[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues." Booth v. Hume Publishing, Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir.1990).

2012We turn to the reasons for the circuit court’s dismissal of Tyler’s five-count counterclaim. ¶ 25 “Actions to confirm arbitration awards *** are straightforward proceedings in which no other claims are to be adjudicated.” Ottley v. Schartzberg, 819 F.2d 373 , 377 (2d Cir. 1987). “[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues.” Booth v. Hume Publishing, Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir. 1990).

22
Ottley v. Schwartzberggreen
ca2 · 1987 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012We turn to the reasons for the circuit court's dismissal of Tyler's five-count counterclaim. ¶ 25 "Actions to confirm arbitration awards * * * are straightforward proceedings in which no other claims are to be adjudicated." Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 377 (2d Cir.1987). "[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues." Booth v. Hume Publishing, Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir.1990).

2012We turn to the reasons for the circuit court’s dismissal of Tyler’s five-count counterclaim. ¶ 25 “Actions to confirm arbitration awards *** are straightforward proceedings in which no other claims are to be adjudicated.” Ottley v. Schartzberg, 819 F.2d 373 , 377 (2d Cir. 1987). “[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues.” Booth v. Hume Publishing, Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir. 1990).

12
In re Marriage of Staszakgreen
illappct · 1991 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025“In the absence of an agreement between the parties, a hearing by the court, with evidence by all sides being presented and considered, is necessary.” In re Marriage of Staszak, 223 Ill.App.3d 335, 341 (1991) (finding that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s post- decree petition to modify child custody and child support). ¶ 23 Here, the preamble to the trial court’s findings reads, “the court having reviewed the pleadings and responses, having conducted a summary hearing, having heard argument from both parties, and the [sic] being fully advised in

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Scullark green
illappct · 2001
2 sentences

2002Scullark then noted that “[t]he logical implication of this holding is that it is not strictly necessary for the [defendant] to plead a lack of culpable negligence until the issue has been raised by the State (or by the [trial] court, which may dismiss for lack of timeliness in the initial summary hearing without the State’s motion), at which point the [defendant] should be allowed to amend his petition.” Scullark, 325 Ill.

2001Thus, "[t]he logical implication of [ Wright's] holding is that it is not strictly necessary for the petitioner to plead a lack of culpable negligence until the issue has been raised by the State (or by the court, which may dismiss for lack of timeliness in the initial summary hearing without the State's motion), at which point the petitioner should be allowed to amend his petition." Scullark, 325 Ill.App.3d at 881 , 259 Ill.Dec. at 792 , 759 N.E.2d at 572 .

32001–2002
People v. Gleckler green
ill · 1980
2 sentences

2002Defense counsel preceded her argument with a summary of the factors relevant in the analysis of sentencing disparity: the relative culpability of the offenders (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 166 ), their rehabilitative prospects (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 171 ), and their criminal histories (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 170-71 ).

2002Defense counsel preceded her argument with a summary of the factors relevant in the analysis of sentencing disparity: the relative culpability of the offenders (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 166 ), their rehabilitative prospects (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 171 ), and their criminal histories (Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d at 170-71 ).

22002–2002
The People v. Lavendowski green
ill · 1928
2 sentences

1930To the same effect are People v. Lavendowski , 329 Ill. 223 ; City of Chicago v. Cohn , 326 id. 372 ; People v. Cohen , 219 id. 200.

1930To the same effect are People v. Lavendowski , 329 Ill. 223 ; City of Chicago v. Cohn , 326 id. 372 ; People v. Cohen , 219 id. 200.

11930–1930
City of Chicago v. Hayward neutral
ill · 1898
1 sentence

1912By its express terms it applies to all cases in which, upon motion and a summary hearing, the court shall find “that such city or village has taken possession of the land and had not paid therefor.” Chicago v. Hayward, supra. Whether appellant might also have a concurrent remedy by an action on the case for damages caused by the wrongful delay, as in the case of Winkelman v. Chicago, supra, is not before us for decision.

11912–1912

Where else courts name it

NJ 47 (1898–2025) NY 46 (1832–2026) PA 31 (1938–2025) CA 21 (1934–2026) TX 20 (1910–2025) LA 20 (1934–2012) WV 18 (1968–2011) OR 13 (1949–2019) IL 10 (1912–2025) MA 10 (1935–2013) MI 10 (1895–2023) VT 9 (1971–1992) OH 9 (1963–2025) IN 8 (1884–2019) WA 8 (1892–2025) OK 7 (1979–2022) FL 7 (1973–2014) GA 5 (1943–2018) ME 5 (1985–2023) WI 5 (1979–2023) NC 4 (1894–2025) IA 4 (1969–2023) MN 4 (1980–2005) DC 3 (1996–2003) ID 3 (1966–1996) MT 3 (1989–2013) VA 3 (1885–2000) MD 3 (1896–2021) MO 3 (1915–1990) UT 2 (2013–2024) CT 2 (1930–1992) MS 2 (1942–1963) AL 2 (1989–2005) KS 2 (1911–1919) CO 2 (2008–2008) AK 2 (1975–1993) KY 2 (1987–2019) AZ 2 (1986–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check