purpose of the statutory requirement in Illinois

1999If the costs have been paid and the clerk has been satisfied that payment has in fact been made, the purpose of the statute has been fulfilled." Berry, 55 Ill.2d at 278 , 302 N.E.2d 277 .

1999If the costs have been paid and the clerk has been satisfied that payment has in fact been made, the purpose of the statute has been fulfilled.” Berry, 55 Ill. 2d at 278 .

1992We are not persuaded to the contrary by defendant’s contention that the purpose of the statutory requirement at issue is to ensure that defendants receive admonishments concerning their Miranda rights and that the court recognized in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 469 , 16 L.

1992We are not persuaded to the contrary by defendant’s contention that the purpose of the statutory requirement at issue is to ensure that defendants receive admonishments concerning their Miranda rights and that the court recognized in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 469 , 16 L.

1987In Chadwick v. Industrial Com. (1987), 154 Ill.

1987In Chadwick v. Industrial Com. (1987), 154 Ill.

1985The Act is premised on the belief that, absent the statutory peer-review privilege, physicians would be reluctant to sit on peer-review committees and engage in frank evaluations of their colleagues.” (Jenkins v. Wu (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 468, 480 .) The restrictions imposed by a hospital on a particular doctor’s privileges to practice there may result from or be the consequence of the peer-review process, or of other internal methods of monitoring and reviewing hospital activity, but that does not mean that the restrictions themselves must also be considered privileged and kept confidential.

1981Quoting, the court in Messenger v. Rutherford stated, “ ‘The purpose of the act in regard to the administration of estates was to facilitate their early settlement, and the limitation for the exhibition of claims 0 e e had that particular purpose in view.’ ” 80 Ill.

1978Strat-O-Seal Manufacturing Co. v. Scott (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 563 , 190 N.E.2d 312 .

1978Strat-O-Seal Manufacturing Co. v. Scott (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 563 , 190 N.E.2d 312 .

1973As we have heretofore said: “We believe that it was incumbent upon petitioner in his petition or accompanying affidavits to identify with reasonable certainty the source from which the alleged evidence *** would be forthcoming, that it was available, and of what it would consist, for this is the purpose of the statutory requirement that affidavits, records or other materials supporting the allegations of the petition accompany it, or their absence be explained.” People v. Ashley (1966), 34 Ill.2d 402, 411 .