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 1979–2023 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. Merriweathergreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., People v. Merriweather, 2022 IL App (4th) 210498, ¶ 26 . ¶ 60 Generally speaking, the law respecting riparian rights provides that, “where there are multiple owners of the bed of a private, nonnavigable lake, such owners and their licensees have the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the surface waters of the entire lake” so long as they do not “unduly interfere with the reasonable use of the waters by other owners and their licensees.” Beacham v. Lake Zurich Property Owners Ass’n, 123 Ill. 2d 227, 232 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Beacham v. Lake Zurich Property Owners Ass'ngreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., People v. Merriweather, 2022 IL App (4th) 210498, ¶ 26 . ¶ 60 Generally speaking, the law respecting riparian rights provides that, “where there are multiple owners of the bed of a private, nonnavigable lake, such owners and their licensees have the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the surface waters of the entire lake” so long as they do not “unduly interfere with the reasonable use of the waters by other owners and their licensees.” Beacham v. Lake Zurich Property Owners Ass’n, 123 Ill. 2d 227, 232 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kennell v. Clayton Township
green
2 sentences2017Specifically, Monson contends that in this case “the immunities afforded by [sections] 2-109 and *** 2-201 (general provisions) are superseded by the exceptions to immunity found within [section] 3-102 (a particular provision).” We reject Monson’s contention as it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of those specific statutory provisions of the Act. ¶ 29 In Kennell v. Clayton Township, 239 Ill. 2017Specifically, Monson contends that in this case “the immunities afforded by [sections] 2-109 and *** 2-201 (general provisions) are superseded by the exceptions to immunity found within [section] 3-102 (a particular provision).” We reject Monson’s contention as it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of those specific statutory provisions of the Act. ¶ 29 In Kennel v. Clayton Township, 239 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2006In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.@ Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 147 L. 2006In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 147 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Done Bros. v. Taussig
green
1 sentence1988Our supreme court has stated: “Rights are said to be merged when the same person who is bound to pay is also entitled to receive.” (Donk Brothers & Co. v. Alexander & Taussig (1886), 117 Ill. 330, 338 , 7 N.E. 672 .) Once plaintiff purchased the note he was entitled to receive the payments on the note, and under the terms of the guarantee agreement he was liable for payment of the entire amount of the note. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1983Defendants argue that the trial court misapplied the standard for attacking a jury verdict enunciated in People v. Holmes (1978), 69 Ill. 2d 507 , 372 N.E.2d 656 . 1983Defendants argue that the trial court misapplied the standard for attacking a jury verdict enunciated in People v. Holmes (1978), 69 Ill. 2d 507 , 372 N.E.2d 656 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Forney v. Calvin
neutral
2 sentences1979Plaintiff maintains that the court misapplied the requirement of evidentiary foundation for hypothetical questions in that the test of whether there was sufficient undisputed physical evidence to provide the necessary basic data for the application of scientific principles does not preclude an expert from inferring from facts in evidence other facts which his expertise assures him exist and then basing his opinion upon the cumulation of such facts, relying upon Forney v. Calvin (1975), 35 Ill. 1979App. 3d 32, 38 , 340 N.E.2d 603 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.