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 1971–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Kraffgreen2 sentences2011See Davis v. Kraff, 405 Ill.App.3d 20, 28-29 , 344 Ill.Dec. 600 , 937 N.E.2d 306 (2010) (citing Coryell v. Smith, 274 Ill.App.3d 543, 546 , 210 Ill.Dec. 855 , 653 N.E.2d 1317 (1995)). 2011See Davis v. Kraff, 405 Ill.App.3d 20, 28-29 , 344 Ill.Dec. 600 , 937 N.E.2d 306 (2010) (citing Coryell v. Smith, 274 Ill.App.3d 543, 546 , 210 Ill.Dec. 855 , 653 N.E.2d 1317 (1995)). | 2 | 2 |
Lyubomir Alexandrov v. Todd LaMontgreen2 sentences2024Thus, “the treatment of a claim in a Chapter 13 plan is not a formal redemption and has no tolling effect on the redemption period.” Id. (citing LaMont, 740 F.3d at 410 ). 2024In other words, the redemption period will expire 5 notwithstanding the fact that an automatic stay prevents the purchaser from taking out and recording the deed—“[t]he redemption period expires when it expires.” LaMont, 740 F.3d at 410 . ¶ 12 After a property owner files bankruptcy, the purchaser may (1) accept payment under the property owner’s plan, (2) obtain relief from the stay in the bankruptcy court and proceed in state court to take out and record the tax deed, or (3) obtain in state court an order declaring the sale a “sale in error.” See Gan B, LLC v. Sims, 575 B.R. 375, 379-80 (N.D | 1 | 2 |
Gan B, LLC v. Simsgreen1 sentence2024In other words, the redemption period will expire 5 notwithstanding the fact that an automatic stay prevents the purchaser from taking out and recording the deed—“[t]he redemption period expires when it expires.” LaMont, 740 F.3d at 410 . ¶ 12 After a property owner files bankruptcy, the purchaser may (1) accept payment under the property owner’s plan, (2) obtain relief from the stay in the bankruptcy court and proceed in state court to take out and record the tax deed, or (3) obtain in state court an order declaring the sale a “sale in error.” See Gan B, LLC v. Sims, 575 B.R. 375, 379-80 (N.D | 1 | 1 |
In re Morrowgreen1 sentence2022See In re Morrow, 495 B.R. 378, 386-87 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
Coryell v. Smithgreen2 sentences2011See Davis v. Kraff, 405 Ill.App.3d 20, 28-29 , 344 Ill.Dec. 600 , 937 N.E.2d 306 (2010) (citing Coryell v. Smith, 274 Ill.App.3d 543, 546 , 210 Ill.Dec. 855 , 653 N.E.2d 1317 (1995)). 2011See Davis v. Kraff, 405 Ill.App.3d 20, 28-29 , 344 Ill.Dec. 600 , 937 N.E.2d 306 (2010) (citing Coryell v. Smith, 274 Ill.App.3d 543, 546 , 210 Ill.Dec. 855 , 653 N.E.2d 1317 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen2 sentences1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . 1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The PEOPLE v. Santucci
green
2 sentences1991It does not appear that the court's treatment of defense counsel was justified, and its continuation throughout the trial must have conveyed to the jury a hostile attitude toward the defense. ( Santucci, 24 Ill.2d 93 , 180 N.E.2d 491 .) The trial court's behavior would almost inevitably have prejudiced the defendant in the eyes of the jury. 1991It does not appear that the court's treatment of defense counsel was justified, and its continuation throughout the trial must have conveyed to the jury a hostile attitude toward the defense. ( Santucci, 24 Ill.2d 93 , 180 N.E.2d 491 .) The trial court's behavior would almost inevitably have prejudiced the defendant in the eyes of the jury. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
The People v. Finn
green
2 sentences1991Finn, 17 Ill.2d 614 , 162 N.E.2d 354 . 1991Finn, 17 Ill.2d 614 , 162 N.E.2d 354 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People Ex Rel. Davis v. Vazquez
green
2 sentences1984Davis v. Vazquez (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 132, 141 .) This position is entirely consistent with this court’s treatment of the doctrine of abuse of discretion in all other cases, civil or criminal, adult or juvenile, pertaining to guilt or sentencing. 1984Davis v. Vazquez (1982), 92 Ill.2d 132, 141 .) This position is entirely consistent with this court's treatment of the doctrine of abuse of discretion in all other cases, civil or criminal, adult or juvenile, pertaining to guilt or sentencing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In re Baker
neutral
1 sentence1982For in In re Baker (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 272 , this court actually used a prior sanction as a mitigating circumstance. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . 1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals
neutral
2 sentences1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . 1975See the treatment of the requirement in Bayer v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 374 , 261 N.E.2d 791 ; Reichard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349 ; Asbach v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 22 , 270 N.E.2d 535 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Barrett v. Fritz
green
1 sentence1971The action of the trial court in giving the instruction on assumption of risk here, where there was neither express consent nor an employment or contractual relationship, * * * constituted reversible error.” Barrett v. Fritz, 42 Ill.2d 529, 536-537 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.