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 2003–2023 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. Wanda A.green1 sentence2023App. 3d 800, 805 , 856 N.E.2d 569, 769 (2006) (finding a respondent was not denied due process by the denial of a motion for a fitness hearing prior to termination proceedings); see also In re N.T., 2015 IL App (1st) 142391, ¶ 58 , 31 N.E.3d 254 (finding the circuit court’s failure to sua sponte order a fitness examination prior to termination proceedings did not deny respondent mother due process). ¶ 33 In C.S., the Third District determined the circuit court erred by denying the respondent mother’s motions for a mental health examination prior to an adjudicatory hearing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re CSgreen1 sentence2023C.S., 376 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In re N.T.green2 sentences2023App. 3d 800, 805 , 856 N.E.2d 569, 769 (2006) (finding a respondent was not denied due process by the denial of a motion for a fitness hearing prior to termination proceedings); see also In re N.T., 2015 IL App (1st) 142391, ¶ 58 , 31 N.E.3d 254 (finding the circuit court’s failure to sua sponte order a fitness examination prior to termination proceedings did not deny respondent mother due process). ¶ 33 In C.S., the Third District determined the circuit court erred by denying the respondent mother’s motions for a mental health examination prior to an adjudicatory hearing. 2023App. 3d 800, 805 , 856 N.E.2d 569, 769 (2006) (finding a respondent was not denied due process by the denial of a motion for a fitness hearing prior to termination proceedings); see also In re N.T., 2015 IL App (1st) 142391, ¶ 58 , 31 N.E.3d 254 (finding the circuit court’s failure to sua sponte order a fitness examination prior to termination proceedings did not deny respondent mother due process). ¶ 33 In C.S., the Third District determined the circuit court erred by denying the respondent mother’s motions for a mental health examination prior to an adjudicatory hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hanson
green
2 sentences2012The appellate court erroneously relied on Cleer to conclude in this case that ‘upon accepting a motion for a fitness hearing and appointing a qualified expert, the trial court implicitly concludes that a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness exists.’ To the extent that Cleer may be read as holding that the grant of a motion for fitness examination, by itself, required the trial court to hold a fitness hearing, it is overruled.” Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 222 (quoting Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 518 , quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 180 )). ¶ 135 Our supreme court also found unpersuasive the defendant’ 2010Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 218 . | 3 | 2010–2012 |
People v. Cleer
green
2 sentences2004Cleer , 328 Ill. 2004Cleer, 328 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2003Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d at 334 . 2003Mitchell , 189 Ill. 2d at 334 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Eddmonds
green
1 sentence2012The appellate court erroneously relied on Cleer to conclude in this case that ‘upon accepting a motion for a fitness hearing and appointing a qualified expert, the trial court implicitly concludes that a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness exists.’ To the extent that Cleer may be read as holding that the grant of a motion for fitness examination, by itself, required the trial court to hold a fitness hearing, it is overruled.” Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 222 (quoting Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 518 , quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 180 )). ¶ 135 Our supreme court also found unpersuasive the defendant’ | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Drope v. Missouri
green
1 sentence2012The appellate court erroneously relied on Cleer to conclude in this case that ‘upon accepting a motion for a fitness hearing and appointing a qualified expert, the trial court implicitly concludes that a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness exists.’ To the extent that Cleer may be read as holding that the grant of a motion for fitness examination, by itself, required the trial court to hold a fitness hearing, it is overruled.” Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 222 (quoting Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 518 , quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 180 )). ¶ 135 Our supreme court also found unpersuasive the defendant’ | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.