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 1 courts 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schwartz v. Cortellonigreen2 sentences2011See Schwartz, 177 Ill.2d at 176 , 226 Ill.Dec. 416 , 685 N.E.2d 871 . ¶ 54 For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is reversed and the cause is remanded. ¶ 55 Reversed and remanded. 2011See Schwartz, 177 Ill.2d at 176 , 226 Ill.Dec. 416 , 685 N.E.2d 871 . ¶ 54 For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is reversed and the cause is remanded. ¶ 55 Reversed and remanded. | 2 | 2 |
In re Marriage of Wittlandgreen2 sentences2011See In re Marriage *1229 of Wittland, 361 Ill.App.3d 785, 787 , 297 Ill.Dec. 821 , 838 N.E.2d 308, 309 (2005). ¶ 17 Kathleen argues that the circuit court erred in granting Richard's motion to dismiss because it erroneously found that the nonmodification clause set forth in the parties' marital settlement agreement was enforceable. 2011See In re Marriage *1229 of Wittland, 361 Ill.App.3d 785, 787 , 297 Ill.Dec. 821 , 838 N.E.2d 308, 309 (2005). ¶ 17 Kathleen argues that the circuit court erred in granting Richard's motion to dismiss because it erroneously found that the nonmodification clause set forth in the parties' marital settlement agreement was enforceable. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Sassanogreen2 sentences2011Thus, regardless of the terms in the marital settlement agreement stating that the maintenance terms were nonmodifiable, "where the parties choose to lump maintenance in with child support, creating an `unallocated' support payment, that `unallocated' support payment is, by statute, modifiable." Id. at 403 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 817 ; accord In re Marriage of Sassano, 337 Ill.App.3d 186, 193 , 271 Ill.Dec. 864 , 785 N.E.2d 1058, 1064 (2003). ¶ 25 In this case, the circuit court, in granting Richard's motion to reconsider and motion to dismiss, relied on Blum for support. 2011Thus, regardless of the terms in the marital settlement agreement stating that the maintenance terms were nonmodifiable, "where the parties choose to lump maintenance in with child support, creating an `unallocated' support payment, that `unallocated' support payment is, by statute, modifiable." Id. at 403 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 817 ; accord In re Marriage of Sassano, 337 Ill.App.3d 186, 193 , 271 Ill.Dec. 864 , 785 N.E.2d 1058, 1064 (2003). ¶ 25 In this case, the circuit court, in granting Richard's motion to reconsider and motion to dismiss, relied on Blum for support. | 2 | 2 |
Cohen v. Harris Trust & Savings Bankgreen1 sentence2024ANALYSIS ¶ 16 We group the parties’ arguments into three overarching issues: (1) whether Christopher’s personal use of the funds is subject to the presumption of undue influence or the conflicting presumption of donative intent, (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the 2015 document purporting to authorize Christopher’s personal use of the funds over Richard’s objection that its admission violated the Dead Man’s Act, and (3) whether the court’s finding that Christopher rebutted the presumption of undue influence with clear and convincing evidence of good faith is against the manifest | 1 | 1 |
William Blair & Co. v. Fi Liquidation Corp.green1 sentence2022Additionally, the parties agree that the Share - 31 - No. 1-21-0493 Agreement, the document governing the court’s review, is unambiguous.15 See Id. (“The mere fact that the parties disagree as to the meaning of a term does not make that term ambiguous.”). ¶ 109 However, earlier in the litigation when addressing Richard’s motion to reconsider, the trial court found that the Consulting Agreement could not be reconciled with the Share Agreement on its face, and ultimately decided the same for the RCA once it reversed its original judgment in favor of Lisa. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Semonchik
green
2 sentences2011Thus, regardless of the terms in the marital settlement agreement stating that the maintenance terms were nonmodifiable, "where the parties choose to lump maintenance in with child support, creating an `unallocated' support payment, that `unallocated' support payment is, by statute, modifiable." Id. at 403 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 817 ; accord In re Marriage of Sassano, 337 Ill.App.3d 186, 193 , 271 Ill.Dec. 864 , 785 N.E.2d 1058, 1064 (2003). ¶ 25 In this case, the circuit court, in granting Richard's motion to reconsider and motion to dismiss, relied on Blum for support. 2011Thus, regardless of the terms in the marital settlement agreement stating that the maintenance terms were nonmodifiable, "where the parties choose to lump maintenance in with child support, creating an `unallocated' support payment, that `unallocated' support payment is, by statute, modifiable." Id. at 403 , 248 Ill.Dec. 136 , 733 N.E.2d at 817 ; accord In re Marriage of Sassano, 337 Ill.App.3d 186, 193 , 271 Ill.Dec. 864 , 785 N.E.2d 1058, 1064 (2003). ¶ 25 In this case, the circuit court, in granting Richard's motion to reconsider and motion to dismiss, relied on Blum for support. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Blum v. Koster
green
2 sentences2011On April 27, 2010, the circuit court, relying on Blum, 235 Ill.2d 21 , 335 Ill.Dec. 614 , 919 N.E.2d 333 , entered an order granting Richard's motion to reconsider and granting the motion to dismiss Kathleen's petition to modify. ¶ 14 On May 26, 2010, Kathleen filed a notice of appeal before this court. ¶ 15 ANALYSIS ¶ 16 The sole issue on appeal before this court is whether the circuit court erred in granting Richard's motion to dismiss, which we review de novo. 2011On April 27, 2010, the circuit court, relying on Blum, 235 Ill.2d 21 , 335 Ill.Dec. 614 , 919 N.E.2d 333 , entered an order granting Richard's motion to reconsider and granting the motion to dismiss Kathleen's petition to modify. ¶ 14 On May 26, 2010, Kathleen filed a notice of appeal before this court. ¶ 15 ANALYSIS ¶ 16 The sole issue on appeal before this court is whether the circuit court erred in granting Richard's motion to dismiss, which we review de novo. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Morrow v. Pappas
green
1 sentence2024“Application of the Dead Man’s Act is an evidentiary matter and will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Morrow v. Pappas, 2017 IL App (3d) 160393 , ¶ 39. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Marriage of Kuyk
green
1 sentence2023In re Marriage of Kuyk, 2015 IL App (2d) 140733, ¶ 10 . ¶ 18 Again, citing Rule 369, Mary contends that, because we did not remand to the trial court for further proceedings after we reversed the court’s order extending maintenance, the court was not “revested with jurisdiction” to consider Richard’s motion to compel reimbursement. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Schloss v. Jumper
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶ 22 Last, Mary contends that the trial court violated her due process rights when it “circumvented the process it said it would apply” and “summarily granted” Richard’s motion to compel reimbursement. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Meyerson v. Software Club of America, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992In Meyerson v. Software Club of America, Inc. (1986), 142 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Mascenic v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1983Richard also claims, apparently as a corollary to the above argument, that the trial court should not have entered judgment against him for failure to pay court-ordered temporary maintenance because he “would have been able to make the household payments if [Wanda] had not improperly secreted the money from their joint account, and it is [she] who should be estopped from alleging the arrearages *** because she has unclean hands relating to the inability of [Richard] to pay.” In support of this statement Richard cites Mascenic v. Anderson (1977), 53 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.