short hearing (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

short hearing in Illinois

9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2024 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Mooregreen
ill · 2003 · cited in 3 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79 . ¶ 121 The record establishes that the trial court considered Short's claim and found it lacked merit.

2014Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79 . ¶ 121 The record establishes that the trial court considered Short's claim and found it lacked merit.

33
Brucker v. Mercolagreen
ill · 2007 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Brucker v. Mercola, 227 Ill. 2d 502, 513 (2007).

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. Eisenberg green
illappct · 1982
2 sentences

2006Kulkarni commented that, in the present case, Kulkarni did not know whether "at the time [defendant] entered into this plea for aggravated battery * * * [defendant] did know whether or not he was extended term eligible." At a short hearing on April 1, 2005, Kulkarni and Combs agreed that, under People v. Eisenberg, 109 Ill.App.3d 98 , 64 Ill.Dec. 707 , 440 N.E.2d 259 (1982), defendant could not receive an extended-term sentence if he had not been admonished before pleading guilty that extended-term sentencing was possible.

2006Kulkarni commented that, in the present case, Kulkarni did not know whether “at the time [defendant] entered into this plea for aggravated battery *** [defendant] did know whether or not he was extended term eligible.” At a short hearing on April 1, 2005, Kulkarni and Combs agreed that, under People v. Eisenberg, 109 Ill.

22006–2006
People v. Florzak green
illappct · 2024
1 sentence

2024After a short hearing on March 16, 2023, the trial court granted the motion to strike. -2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230196 ¶7 The court then immediately proceeded to a hearing on defendant’s petition to expunge.

12024–2024
People v. Jackson green
illappct · 2011
1 sentence

2019Id. ¶ 90 Applying these principles here, we cannot say that counsel had any basis for objecting to the very short inquiry initiated by the trial court.

12019–2019
People v. R.S. green
ill · 1984
2 sentences

1990(See People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 .) However, section 5—14(b)(2) of the Act indicates that when a short hearing date is required because of the minor being in detention, the only parent who need be served is a custodial parent.

1990(See People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 .) However, section 5—14(b)(2) of the Act indicates that when a short hearing date is required because of the minor being in detention, the only parent who need be served is a custodial parent.

11990–1990

Where else courts name it

IL 9 (1990–2024) TX 7 (1937–2015) FL 6 (1990–2018) CA 6 (1945–2025) IN 5 (1990–2020) GA 4 (1852–2025) NY 3 (1869–1987) MO 3 (1936–2012) WI 3 (1977–2010) OH 3 (2011–2020) IA 3 (2004–2016) CO 2 (2024–2024) UT 2 (2018–2024) WA 2 (2020–2022) VA 2 (1979–2014) SC 2 (1999–2009)

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