8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 3 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. Mayfieldgreen1 sentence2025See generally People v. Mayfield, 2023 IL 128092, ¶¶ 39-40 . ¶ 55 We further note that section 5-2-4(e) states that, “the Court shall set a hearing to be held within 120 days.” 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(e) (West 2018). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Detention of Cain
green
2 sentences2010"Whether or not probable cause exists to warrant a further evidentiary hearing is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court," and "[a]bsent an abuse of that discretion, we will not disturb the court's probable cause determination." In re Detention of Cain, 341 Ill.App.3d at 482 , 275 Ill.Dec. 325 , 792 N.E.2d 800 . 2010"Whether or not probable cause exists to warrant a further evidentiary hearing is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court," and "[a]bsent an abuse of that discretion, we will not disturb the court's probable cause determination." In re Detention of Cain, 341 Ill.App.3d at 482 , 275 Ill.Dec. 325 , 792 N.E.2d 800 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 77 In addition, “180 days after a defendant is remanded to the [Department], under paragraph (2), and every 180 days thereafter for so long as the defendant is confined under the order entered thereunder, the court shall set a hearing” and provide notice to all interested and necessary parties. 2024Id. § 104-25(g)(2)(i). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gibbons v. OSF Healthcare System
green
2 sentences2022The court shall direct that notice of the time and place of the hearing be served upon the [patient], his [or her] responsible relatives, - 13 - 2022 IL App (2d) 210038 and the persons entitled to receive a copy of the petition pursuant to Section 3-609.” (Emphases added.) Id. § 3-611. ¶ 28 The Mental Health Code defines the “facility director” as the “chief officer of a mental health or developmental disabilities facility or his [or her] designee or the supervisor of a program of treatment or habilitation, or his [or her] designee.” Id. § 1-104. ¶ 29 The Mental Health Code also provides immun 2022The court shall direct that notice of the time and place of the hearing be served upon the [patient], his [or her] responsible relatives, - 13 - 2022 IL App (2d) 210038 and the persons entitled to receive a copy of the petition pursuant to Section 3-609.” (Emphases added.) Id. § 3-611. ¶ 28 The Mental Health Code defines the “facility director” as the “chief officer of a mental health or developmental disabilities facility or his [or her] designee or the supervisor of a program of treatment or habilitation, or his [or her] designee.” Id. § 1-104. ¶ 29 The Mental Health Code also provides immun | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Amanda H.
green
2 sentences2018Upon the filing of the petition and first certificate, the court shall set a hearing to be held within 5 days * * * after receipt of the petition." Id. § 3-611. ¶ 32 b. 2018The Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 33 "Because the Code protects liberty interests, strict compliance with statutory procedures is required." Amanda H. , 2017 IL App (3d) 150164 , ¶ 34, 413 Ill.Dec. 866 , 79 N.E.3d 215 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Flores
green
1 sentence1994(People v. Flores (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 40, 47 .) This court stated the approach for determining whether a time limitation is mandatory in Corrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 230 : “The problem is one of statutory construction. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission
green
1 sentence1994(People v. Flores (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 40, 47 .) This court stated the approach for determining whether a time limitation is mandatory in Corrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 230 : “The problem is one of statutory construction. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re Price
green
1 sentence1990The respondent cites In re Price (1987), 152 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.