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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Harveygreen1 sentence2023People v. Harvey, 366 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 |
|---|---|---|
American State Bank v. County of Woodford
green
2 sentences1985“The rationale for providing a mandatory right of removal before there has been a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party should not be compelled to present his case ‘before a judge who is prejudiced, whether actually or only by suspicion’; the correlative principle for requiring actual allegations of prejudice after a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party ‘may not “judge shop” until he finds one in total sympathy to his cause’ American State Bank v. County of Woodford (1977), 55 Ill. 1983App. 3d 443, 447 , 362 N.E.2d 33 , appeal denied (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 637 .) The rationale for providing a mandatory right of removal before there has been a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party should not be compelled to present his case “before a judge who is prejudiced, whether actually or only by suspicion”; the correlative principle for requiring actual allegations of prejudice after a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party “may not ‘judge shop’ until he finds one in total sympathy to his cause.” American State Bank v. County of Woodford (1977), 55 Ill. | 2 | 1983–1985 |
Madlener v. Finley
green
1 sentence2009Madlener, 128 Ill. 2d at 154 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rodgers v. Consolidated RR Corp.
green
2 sentences1995Rodgers, 136 Ill.App.3d 191 , 90 Ill.Dec. 797 , 482 N.E.2d 1080 , also relied on by F & B, merely applies the correlative of the rule that the right of action accrues to the representative, that is, a beneficiary possesses no individual right to bring his or her own suit. 1995Rodgers, 136 Ill.App.3d 191 , 90 Ill.Dec. 797 , 482 N.E.2d 1080 , also relied on by F & B, merely applies the correlative of the rule that the right of action accrues to the representative, that is, a beneficiary possesses no individual right to bring his or her own suit. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Commercial National Bank v. Bruno
green
1 sentence1994(See Commercial National Bank v. Bruno, 75 Ill. 2d at 350-51 .) Of course, the correlative rule or exception is that money paid under a mistake of fact is recoverable by the payor. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
The Hartford v. Doubler
green
1 sentence1994(See Hartford v. Doubler, 105 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kuhl v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1992The employer relies in part upon the correlative of the rule expressed in Kuhl v. Industrial Comm’n (1986), 147 Ill. 1992App. 3d 519 , 498 N.E.2d 240 , that an insufficient tender without a bona fide dispute as to the amount owed may be treated as no tender at all. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
In Re Marriage of Zannis
green
1 sentence1985App. 3d 123, 128 .” In re Marriage of Zannis (1983), 114 Ill. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Templeton v. FIRST NAT'L BK. OF NASHVILLE
green
1 sentence1983App. 3d 443, 447 , 362 N.E.2d 33 , appeal denied (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 637 .) The rationale for providing a mandatory right of removal before there has been a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party should not be compelled to present his case “before a judge who is prejudiced, whether actually or only by suspicion”; the correlative principle for requiring actual allegations of prejudice after a ruling on a substantial issue is that a party “may not ‘judge shop’ until he finds one in total sympathy to his cause.” American State Bank v. County of Woodford (1977), 55 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Schiff v. Schiff
neutral
1 sentence1962Allwood v. Cahill, 382 Ill 511, 47 NE 2d 698 ; Schiff v. Schiff, 25 Ill App2d 157, 165 NE2d 713 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Allwood v. Cahill
green
1 sentence1962Allwood v. Cahill, 382 Ill 511, 47 NE 2d 698 ; Schiff v. Schiff, 25 Ill App2d 157, 165 NE2d 713 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.