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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.green2 sentences2022See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). ¶8 ANALYSIS ¶9 On appeal, Ellis argues the trial court erred in finding no contract between the parties, showed favoritism by not considering her motion regarding Felton’s failure to file an appearance, and improperly allowed Felton’s witness to testify in Felton’s presence despite objection. ¶ 10 We note that Ellis’s pro se brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. 2020See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Cookgreen2 sentences2025Illinois ceased recognizing common law marriage in 1905. 750 ILCS 5/214 (West 2022); Wilson v. Cook, 256 Ill. 460, 466 (1912). -2- No. 1-23-0320 ¶8 The State offered Ellis plea terms of 25 years under an amended count of first degree murder. 2025Illinois ceased recognizing common law marriage in 1905. 750 ILCS 5/214 (West 2022); Wilson v. Cook, 256 Ill. 460, 466 (1912). -2- No. 1-23-0320 ¶8 The State offered Ellis plea terms of 25 years under an amended count of first degree murder. | 1 | 1 |
Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc.green1 sentence2023Further, this court may entertain the appeal of a party who files an insufficient brief “so long as we understand the issue [the party] intends to raise and especially where the court has the benefit of a cogent brief of the other party.” Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simmsgreen2 sentences2021See People v. Simms, 2021 IL App (1st) 161067-B, ¶¶ 35-38 . ¶ 44 Although the issue in Simms was how the courts should evaluate a claim of actual innocence at the leave-to-file stage of a successive postconviction petition (Simms, 2020 IL App (1st) 161067, ¶ 18 ), we believe Justice Ellis’s analysis applies to the issue before this court regarding the second-stage dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition. 2021(To ‘believe’ just means ‘to accept something as -7- true, genuine, or real.’ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/believe (last visited June 3, 2019)). *** We then ask whether it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror, hearing and believing this evidence, alongside all the other evidence presented at trial, could convict defendant.” (Emphases in original.) Simms, 2020 IL App (1st) 161067, ¶¶ 53-57 (Ellis, J., dissenting). ¶ 45 We have quoted Justice Ellis’s analysis in Simms and the First District’s analysis in Velasco because it seems to us | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Galuskagreen1 sentence2020See Epstein v. Galuska, 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2020Id. ¶ 38. ¶6 While the State’s petition for leave to appeal that decision was pending, however, our supreme court decided People v. Holmes, 2017 IL 120407 . 2020Id. ¶ 38. ¶6 While the State’s petition for leave to appeal that decision was pending, however, our supreme court decided People v. Holmes, 2017 IL 120407 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Floyd F. (In Re N.G.)
green
2 sentences2020In his petition, Mr. Ellis argued (1) that In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939 , decided by our supreme court after Holmes and after our 2018 decision affirming Mr. Ellis’s conviction, contained language that “contradicted and went against Holmes”; (2) that Holmes had thus been overruled “sub-silentio”; and (3) that the trial court’s denial of Mr. Ellis’s motion to suppress was erroneous under this new precedent. 2020In his petition, Mr. Ellis argued (1) that In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939 , decided by our supreme court after Holmes and after our 2018 decision affirming Mr. Ellis’s conviction, contained language that “contradicted and went against Holmes”; (2) that -3- No. 1-19-0774 Holmes had thus been overruled “sub-silentio”; and (3) that the trial court’s denial of Mr. Ellis’s motion to suppress was erroneous under this new precedent. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Aguilar
green
2 sentences2020Mr. Ellis, who had been convicted of two prior qualifying felonies, was found guilty of being an armed habitual criminal (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95 (West 2012)) and, because this was his third Class X conviction, was sentenced to natural life in prison. ¶4 Several months after Mr. Ellis’s trial, our supreme court held in People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , ¶¶ 21-22, that section 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d) of the AUUW statute (720 ILCS 5/24- 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d) (West 2008)) was facially unconstitutional in violation of the second amendment. 2020Mr. Ellis, who had been convicted of two prior qualifying felonies, was found guilty of being an armed habitual criminal (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95 (West 2012)) and, because this was his third Class X conviction, was sentenced to natural life in prison. ¶4 Several months after Mr. Ellis’s trial, our supreme court held in People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , ¶¶ 21-22, that section 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d) of the AUUW statute (720 ILCS 5/24- 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d) (West 2008)) was facially unconstitutional in violation of the second amendment. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Voris v. Voris
green
1 sentence2025Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Holzrichter v. Yorath
green
1 sentence2023Holzrichter, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 77 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority
green
1 sentence2023Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 IL App (1st) 153517 , ¶ 7. ¶ 15 Here, Ellis’s brief lacks cohesive legal arguments, reasoned bases for her contentions, citations to the record, or citations to authorities beyond a general reference to the “U.S. Constitution.” In these circumstances, we would be justified in striking her brief and dismissing the appeal. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ellis v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities
green
1 sentence1984The majority distinguishes Bio-Medical Laboratories, finding that Ellis' suit is "clearly based upon a present claim which has the potential to subject the State to liability." ( 102 Ill.2d at 395 .) While this may describe Ellis' claim for back pay, it certainly does not portray the basis for her claim for reinstatement. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.