Illinois Supreme Court rule in Illinois

2025Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court’s warnings regarding past legislative nonconformance with constitutional boundaries (see Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 328-29 ) appear to have gone unheeded and, instead, are now interpreted as the judiciary’s acceptance of, or the judiciary’s acquiescence in, the legislature’s continued failure to adhere to constitutional procedures when enacting legislation.

2025In Geja’s Cafe, 153 Ill. 2d at 260 , this court declined the invitation to abandon the enrolled-bill doctrine, feeling ‘the doctrine of separation of powers is more compelling.’ However, this court deferred to the legislature ‘hesitantly’ and ‘reserve[d] the right to revisit this issue on another day to decide the continued propriety of ignoring this constitutional violation.’ Id. *** Accuracy Firearms [also] addressed the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs there as to the legislature’s repeated failure to adhere to the requirements of article IV, section 8(d), and the three-readings ru

2025In Geja’s Cafe, 153 Ill. 2d at 260 , this court declined the invitation to abandon the enrolled-bill doctrine, feeling ‘the doctrine of separation of powers is more compelling.’ However, this court deferred to the legislature ‘hesitantly’ and ‘reserve[d] the right to revisit this issue on another day to decide the continued propriety of ignoring this constitutional violation.’ Id. *** Accuracy Firearms [also] addressed the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs there as to the legislature’s repeated failure to adhere to the requirements of article IV, section 8(d), and the three-readings ru

2025In Geja’s Cafe, 153 Ill. 2d at 260 , this court declined the invitation to abandon the enrolled-bill doctrine, feeling ‘the doctrine of separation of powers is more compelling.’ However, this court deferred to the legislature ‘hesitantly’ and ‘reserve[d] the right to revisit this issue on another day to decide the continued propriety of ignoring this constitutional violation.’ Id. *** Accuracy Firearms [also] addressed the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs there as to the legislature’s repeated failure to adhere to the requirements of article IV, section 8(d), and the three-readings ru

2025Feb. 1, 1994), which provides that “[e]very final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case is appealable as of right.” ¶ 22 An “appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review judgments, orders, or decrees that are not final, unless an Illinois Supreme Court rule provides for jurisdiction.” In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2024 IL 129155, ¶ 19 .

2025Feb. 1, 1994), which provides that “[e]very final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case is appealable as of right.” ¶ 22 An “appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review judgments, orders, or decrees that are not final, unless an Illinois Supreme Court rule provides for jurisdiction.” In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2024 IL 129155, ¶ 19 .

2015Although the decision of whether to certify a class typically rests upon the factors set forth in section 2-801 of the Code 13 (735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2012)), in Coy, this court followed the Illinois Supreme Court's analysis in Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 72 (2007), finding that "there is no need to determine whether the prerequisites of the class action are satisfied if, as a threshold matter, the record establishes that the plaintiffs have not stated an actionable claim." Coy, 409 Ill.

2015Although the decision of whether to certify a class typically rests upon the factors set forth in section 2-801 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2012)), in Coy, this court followed the Illinois Supreme Court's analysis in Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 72 (2007), finding that "there is no need to determine whether the prerequisites of the class action are satisfied if, as a threshold matter, the record establishes that the plaintiffs have not stated an actionable claim." Coy, 409 Ill.

2020Id. at 562-63 .

2020Id. at 562-63 .

2020“Interpretation of the Illinois Supreme Court rules is governed by the same principles as statutory interpretation.” McCarthy v. Taylor, 2019 IL 123622, ¶ 17 .

2020“Interpretation of the Illinois Supreme Court rules is governed by the same principles as statutory interpretation.” McCarthy v. Taylor, 2019 IL 123622, ¶ 17 .

2018Id. ¶ 44 In each of these cases, the disappointed plaintiff waived the right to reject the arbitration award, either by failing to do so within 30 days or by failing to attend the arbitration hearing.

2018Id. ¶ 44 In each of these cases, the disappointed plaintiff waived the right to reject the arbitration award, either by failing to do so within 30 days or by failing to attend the arbitration hearing.

2018The nature of these enduring relationships plays a crucial role in determining whether there is good cause to overcome the presumption of a parent's superior right to custody. ¶ 62 We find guidance in the Illinois Supreme Court's analysis in the case of In re Parentage of J.W. , 2013 IL 114817 , 371 Ill.Dec. 510 , 990 N.E.2d 698 .

2018The nature of these enduring relationships plays a crucial role in determining whether there is good cause to overcome the presumption of a parent’s superior right to custody. - 12 - ¶ 62 We find guidance in the Illinois Supreme Court’s analysis in the case of In re Parentage of J.W., 2013 IL 114817 .

2007Melchor, 226 Ill.2d at 34-35 , 312 Ill.Dec. 632 , 871 N.E.2d 32 .

2007Melchor, 226 Ill.2d at 34-35 , 312 Ill.Dec. 632 , 871 N.E.2d 32 .

2002App. 3d at 27-28 . “ ‘The Illinois Supreme Court’s test for determining whether a defendant “is in the business of supplying information for the guidance of others in their business transactions” is whether the end product of the relationship between plaintiff is a tangible object (i.e., a product) which could be readily described in a contract or whether it is intangible. [Citation.] In short, if the intended end result of the plaintiff-defendant relationship is for the defendant to create a product, a tangible thing, then the defendant will not fit into the “business of supplying information

2002App. 3d at 27-28 . "'The Illinois Supreme Court's test for determining whether a defendant "is in the business of supplying information for the guidance of others in their business transactions" is whether the end product of the relationship between plaintiff is a tangible object ( i.e. , a product) which could be readily described in a contract or whether it is intangible. [Citation.] In short, if the intended end result of the plaintiff-defendant relationship is for the defendant to create a product, a tangible thing, then the defendant will not fit into the "business of supplying informatio

1976Burrus v. Silhavy, 155 Ind. App. 558 , 293 N.E.2d 794 (1973); Davis, Motions in Limine, 15 Clev.Mar.

1976Burrus v. Silhavy, 155 Ind. App. 558 , 293 N.E.2d 794 (1973); Davis, Motions in Limine, 15 Clev.Mar.

2025The trial court, applying the pleading standards for successive postconviction petitions set forth by the supreme court in People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849 , denied defendant leave to file his successive petition, finding that the Jones affidavit, when considered along with the trial evidence, did not create a probability of a different outcome on retrial.

2025Defendant did not offer any facts in support of an as-applied challenge or further elaborate on that claim. ¶ 12 On October 2, 2020, the court dismissed the petition “without prejudice,” as it was waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on People v. House, 2021 IL 125124 .

2025Although a local rule must yield to a conflicting Illinois Supreme Court rule (Jones, 2018 IL App (1st) 170710, ¶ 23 ), “[t]here is no question that the supreme court has the authority to permit or mandate the implementation of a court program that otherwise would be incompatible with its own rules” (id. ¶ 25).

2025By its plain terms, Rule 92(e) states that if statutory costs are not addressed by the arbitrator—for any reason, including a party’s failure to submit costs to the arbitrator—the prevailing party retains the right to seek those costs in the trial court. ¶ 25 The appellate court found the fact that the Cook County circuit court did not adopt an amendment similar to Rule 92(e) in its local rules “signifies that a party’s failure to present a request for costs to the arbitration panel constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to recover costs upon entry of judgment.” 2024 IL App (1st) 230079 ¶ 25

2025By its plain terms, Rule 92(e) states that if statutory costs are not addressed by the arbitrator—for any reason, including a party’s failure to submit costs to the arbitrator—the prevailing party retains the right to seek those costs in the trial court. ¶ 25 The appellate court found the fact that the Cook County circuit court did not adopt an amendment similar to Rule 92(e) in its local rules “signifies that a party’s failure to present a request for costs to the arbitration panel constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to recover costs upon entry of judgment.” 2024 IL App (1st) 230079 ¶ 25

2025“A judgment is final if it ‘fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties in the lawsuit *** [and] determines the litigation on the merits so that, if affirmed, the only thing remaining is to proceed with the execution of the judgment.’ ” Inland Commercial Property Management, 2015 IL App (1st) 141051, ¶ 18 (quoting In re Parentage of Rogan M., 2014 IL App (1st) 132765, ¶ 9 ).

2025“A judgment is final if it ‘fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties in the lawsuit *** [and] determines the litigation on the merits so that, if affirmed, the only thing remaining is to proceed with the execution of the judgment.’ ” Inland Commercial Property Management, 2015 IL App (1st) 141051, ¶ 18 (quoting In re Parentage of Rogan M., 2014 IL App (1st) 132765, ¶ 9 ).

2024OPINION ¶1 The circuit court certified the following question on appeal: “[M]ay a party seek return of fines paid to a government entity pursuant to void judgments at any time, notwithstanding the applicability of any relevant statute of limitations or other public policy considerations?” For the reasons below, we answer a limited version of the above question in the affirmative and hold that the Illinois Supreme Court’s exception to the rule that void judgments can be challenged at any No. 1-23-1460 time, as explained in Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of Du Page, 195 Ill. 2d 257 (2001), appli