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 1990–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Courtgreen2 sentences2017See Simpson v. Office of the Chief Judge, 559 F.3d 706, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2009) (defendants’ conduct in terminating plaintiff’s employment while plaintiff was on medical leave did not violate FMLA because charges of wrongdoing leveled against plaintiff justified her termination, regardless of her leave); Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc., 259 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2001) (“an employee may be fired for poor performance when she would have been fired for such performance even absent her leave”). -7 No. 1-16-1674 ¶ 19 Notwithstanding her failure to pursue this argument on appeal, Weav 2017See Simpson v. Office of the Chief Judge, 559 F.3d 706, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2009) (defendants’ conduct in terminating plaintiff’s employment while plaintiff was on medical leave did not violate FMLA because charges of wrongdoing leveled against plaintiff justified her termination, regardless of her leave); Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc., 259 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2001) (“an employee may be fired for poor performance when she would have been fired for such performance even absent her leave”). ¶ 19 Notwithstanding her failure to pursue this argument on appeal, Weaver’s brief alludes | 2 | 2 |
Amy Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc. D/B/A Maple Manor Healthcaregreen2 sentences2017See Simpson v. Office of the Chief Judge, 559 F.3d 706, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2009) (defendants’ conduct in terminating plaintiff’s employment while plaintiff was on medical leave did not violate FMLA because charges of wrongdoing leveled against plaintiff justified her termination, regardless of her leave); Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc., 259 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2001) (“an employee may be fired for poor performance when she would have been fired for such performance even absent her leave”). -7 No. 1-16-1674 ¶ 19 Notwithstanding her failure to pursue this argument on appeal, Weav 2017See Simpson v. Office of the Chief Judge, 559 F.3d 706, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2009) (defendants’ conduct in terminating plaintiff’s employment while plaintiff was on medical leave did not violate FMLA because charges of wrongdoing leveled against plaintiff justified her termination, regardless of her leave); Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc., 259 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2001) (“an employee may be fired for poor performance when she would have been fired for such performance even absent her leave”). ¶ 19 Notwithstanding her failure to pursue this argument on appeal, Weaver’s brief alludes | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bradfordgreen2 sentences2021We agree with Moore and find that the instant appellate court decision erroneously speculated that the retail theft statute would be rendered a nullity if the long-standing Weaver rule continued to apply. ¶ 30 Bradford’s final reason for refusing to extend the limited authority doctrine to burglary by remaining was that it would be “at odds with the historical development of the burglary statute.” Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 29 . 2021We agree with Moore and find that the instant appellate court decision erroneously speculated that the retail theft statute would be rendered a nullity if the long-standing Weaver rule continued to apply. ¶ 30 Bradford’s final reason for refusing to extend the limited authority doctrine to burglary by remaining was that it would be “at odds with the historical development of the burglary statute.” Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 29 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The PEOPLE v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2021We observed that “[a]n entry with intent to commit a theft cannot be said to be within the authority granted patrons of a laundromat.” Id. ¶ 61 The majority would apply the Weaver rule here, asserting that our holding in that case rested entirely on the defendant’s criminal intent at the time he entered the building. 2021We observed that “[a]n entry with intent to commit a theft cannot be said to be within the authority granted patrons of a laundromat.” Id. ¶ 61 The majority would apply the Weaver rule here, asserting that our holding in that case rested entirely on the defendant’s criminal intent at the time he entered the building. | 5 | 2014–2021 |
People v. Drake
green
2 sentences2014This court held, pursuant to Weaver, that the defendant's entry was without authority even though the building was open to the general public because the "[d]efendant did not have authority to enter the grocery store to commit a forgery." Id. at 1028 , 527 N.E.2d at 520 (citing Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 439 , 243 N.E.2d at 248 ). ¶ 28 Clearly, Weaver and the above cases which adopted Weaver's analysis all involved the offense of burglary by unlawful entry, whereas the defendant in the present case was convicted of burglary by unlawfully remaining. 2014This court held, pursuant to Weaver, that the defendant's entry was without authority even though the building was open to the general public because the "[d]efendant did not have authority to enter the grocery store to commit a forgery." Id. at 1028 , 527 N.E.2d at 520 (citing Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 439 , 243 N.E.2d at 248 ). ¶ 28 Clearly, Weaver and the above cases which adopted Weaver's analysis all involved the offense of burglary by unlawful entry, whereas the defendant in the present case was convicted of burglary by unlawfully remaining. | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Boswell v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2017Boswell v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 150871, ¶ 31 . ¶ 24 We do not believe Weaver’s case presents extraordinary or compelling circumstances, but even assuming that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable, Weaver’s claim nevertheless fails. 2017Boswell v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 150871, ¶ 31 . ¶ 24 We do not believe Weaver’s case presents extraordinary or compelling circumstances, but even assuming that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable, Weaver’s claim nevertheless fails. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1992Defendant argues that the case at bar is remarkably similar to People v. Johnson (1985), 138 Ill. 1992Defendant argues that the case at bar is remarkably similar to People v. Johnson (1985), 138 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Broussard v. Huffman Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1990App. 3d 356 , 438 N.E.2d 1217 .) Since Baltus put his competence as an expert in issue in his response to Weaver’s motion to bar experts for lack of disclosure, he had the burden of presenting himself as a qualified expert on the material issues. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.