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 1 courts 1972–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holtzmangreen2 sentences2015See id. at 115 (concluding defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding whether the sales price of the property was 20 1-13-1272 unconscionable under section 15-1508(b)(ii) of the Foreclosure Law). 2015See id. at 115 (concluding defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding whether the sales price of the property was unconscionable under section 15-1508(b)(ii) of the Foreclosure Law). | 2 | 4 |
Deutsche Bank National v. Burtleygreen1 sentence2021According to defendant, this “reduced the likelihood the sale would be well-attended” and “cratered sale price, as fewer bidders meant less competition for the property.” ¶ 63 Although section 15-1508(b) was amended to provide for an evidentiary hearing, this court has found that the legislature intended this language to create a “ ‘new, but limited, level of inquiry’ ” rather than “to require an extended evidentiary hearing after each sheriff’s sale.” Deutsche Bank Nat. v. Burtley, 371 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 |
|---|---|---|
Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Selig
neutral
2 sentences1973(Compare Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Selig, 38 Ill.App.2d 242 , 186 N.E.2d 666 .) Despite an extended evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs failed to persuade the trial court that a need existed for preliminary injunctive relief. 1973(Compare Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Selig, 38 Ill.App.2d 242 , 186 N.E.2d 666 .) Despite an extended evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs failed to persuade the trial court that a need existed for preliminary injunctive relief. | 2 | 1972–1973 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cortez
green
1 sentence2024For example, in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cortez, 2020 IL App (1st) 192234, ¶ 10 , a borrower objected to the confirmation of a judicial sale based - 12 - No. 1-23-1994 on his assertion that he had entered into a loan modification agreement with the mortgagee. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2024“Although an extended evidentiary hearing after each foreclosure sale is not required, an evidentiary hearing may be conducted when the defendant presents allegations and evidence that establish the sale was not in conformity with section 15- 1508 of the Foreclosure Law.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mars, Inc. v. Curtiss Candy Co.
green
2 sentences1973(See Mars, Inc. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 338, 344 , 290 N.E.2d 701 .) Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when after making its findings it denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 1973(See Mars, Inc. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 338, 344 , 290 N.E.2d 701 .) Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when after making its findings it denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Gifford v. Rich
green
2 sentences1972(Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Selig, 38 Ill.App.2d 242, 244 , 186 N.E.2d 666, 667 ; Gifford v. Rich, 58 Ill.App.2d 405, 407-8 , 208 N.E.2d 47, 48 .) Despite an extended evidentiary hearing, Mars failed to persuade the trial court that such a need existed. 1972(Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Selig, 38 Ill.App.2d 242, 244 , 186 N.E.2d 666, 667 ; Gifford v. Rich, 58 Ill.App.2d 405, 407-8 , 208 N.E.2d 47, 48 .) Despite an extended evidentiary hearing, Mars failed to persuade the trial court that such a need existed. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.