issue during hearing in Illinois

2001Daley v. Kilbourn Club, Inc., 64 Ill.

2001Daley v. Kilbourn Club, Inc., 64 Ill.

2025While the appointed counsel in Kyles withdrew the defendant’s - 11 - ineffective assistance claims, choosing instead to challenge only the defendant’s sentence (Kyles, 2020 IL App (2d) 180087, ¶ 17 ), posttrial counsel here adopted defendant’s ineffective assistance claim, included it in his filings and arguments, and provided the requisite representation to ensure the trial court fully considered the issue.

1999The appellate court held that “[a]s subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the proceeding, the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on this issue, even in response to Radke’s motion to vacate the consent judgment.” City of Marseilles, 287 Ill.

1995(Swift & Co. v. Dollahan (1954), 2 Ill. App. 2d 574, 587 , 120 N.E.2d 249 (defendants waived argument by failing to specify it in their motion to dismiss).) The record here shows that defendants clearly raised this issue in their reply memorandum and that plaintiff’s attorney vigorously addressed the issue during the hearing on the motion.

1995(Swift & Co. v. Dollahan (1954), 2 Ill. App. 2d 574, 587 , 120 N.E.2d 249 (defendants waived argument by failing to specify it in their motion to dismiss).) The record here shows that defendants clearly raised this issue in their reply memorandum and that plaintiff’s attorney vigorously addressed the issue during the hearing on the motion.

1992(Shields, 143 Ill. 2d at 445-46 , 575 N.E.2d at 543 .) Given the application of section 1 — 6(f) of the Criminal Code and the information stated to the jury by defense counsel in his closing argument, we find the court’s failure to sua sponte instruct on this issue was harmless error.

1992(Shields, 143 Ill. 2d at 445-46 , 575 N.E.2d at 543 .) Given the application of section 1 — 6(f) of the Criminal Code and the information stated to the jury by defense counsel in his closing argument, we find the court’s failure to sua sponte instruct on this issue was harmless error.

1990When combined with the failure to even discuss the issue during the hearing on Ayala’s post-trial motion, we conclude that pursuant to People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 , review of the issue would generally be waived.

1978Claimant cites in her brief Ohligschlager v. Proctor Community Hospital, 55 Ill. 2d 411 , 303 N.E.2d 392 , which stated that “Where a drug manufacturer recommends to the medical profession (1) the conditions under which its drug should be prescribed; (2) the disorders it is designed to relieve; (3) the precautionary measures which should be observed; and (4) warns of the dangers which are inherent in its use, the doctor’s deviation from such recommendation is prima facie evidence of negligence.

1978Claimant cites in her brief Ohligschlager v. Proctor Community Hospital, 55 Ill. 2d 411 , 303 N.E.2d 392 , which stated that “Where a drug manufacturer recommends to the medical profession (1) the conditions under which its drug should be prescribed; (2) the disorders it is designed to relieve; (3) the precautionary measures which should be observed; and (4) warns of the dangers which are inherent in its use, the doctor’s deviation from such recommendation is prima facie evidence of negligence.