scheduling hearing (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

scheduling hearing in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Mallengreen
scotus · 1988 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 241-42 , 100 L.

2004See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 241-42 , 100 L.

22
General Motors Corp. v. Pappasgreen
ill · 2011 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023A week later, we granted Graham leave to file the docketing statement. ¶ 34 The purpose of a docketing statement is to “provide[] the appellate court with general information about a case docketed in the court.” General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163, 178 (2011).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Washington v. Clayter green
illappct · 1980
2 sentences

2008Washington, 91 Ill.

2008Washington, 91 Ill.

22008–2008
People v. Stevens green
ill · 2014
1 sentence

2025From the opinion in Williams, though, we do not know what the court records in the paternity case said. ¶ 42 In sum, as the State argues, “any permissible matter which affects the witness’s credibility may be developed on cross-examination” (internal quotation marks omitted) (People v. Stevens, 2014 IL 116300, ¶ 16 ), and the expiration of the statute of limitations arguably had relevance to Preston’s credibility.

12025–2025
Miller v. Aderhold green
scotus · 1933
1 sentence

2000Ed. 702 , 53 S. Ct. 325 (1933), the State argues that, even if defendant did not cause the delay, he may not challenge it as unreasonable because he failed to alert the court to its scheduling error.

12000–2000
Kahn v. Civil Service Commission green
illappct · 1976
1 sentence

1977App. 3d 87 , 353 N.E.2d 331 and Kahn v. Civil Service Com. (1976), 40 Ill.

11977–1977
Jackson v. Civil Service Commission neutral
illappct · 1976
2 sentences

1977This court held the 30-day provision was mandatory rather than directory and the requirement of the statute had not been satisfied. 1 The factual situation presented by this case — the scheduling of a hearing within 30 days followed by its postponement at the State’s request so that no hearing was actually held within the 30-day period — was considered in two later cases, Jackson v. Civil Service Com. (1976), 41 Ill.

1977App. 3d 87 , 353 N.E.2d 331 and Kahn v. Civil Service Com. (1976), 40 Ill.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

NY 14 (1976–2023) PA 13 (1977–2024) CA 13 (1988–2021) TX 12 (2004–2025) OH 8 (1996–2026) IL 8 (1977–2025) FL 6 (2001–2014) MD 5 (1979–2006) WA 4 (1995–2025) OR 4 (2009–2014) MN 3 (1998–2017) LA 3 (1994–2025) WI 2 (2019–2019) MO 2 (1982–1997) IN 2 (2024–2024) NE 2 (2022–2024) VT 2 (1987–2024) WV 2 (2012–2012) SC 2 (2024–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check