discussion doctrine in Illinois

2020See Ayers, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 12 ; Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78-79 .

2007Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78-79 .

2021It did allege that defendant’s statements were involuntary and included a discussion of the test for voluntariness set out in Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28 (1976) (per curiam). ¶5 Defendant pointed out the factors used to determine whether a confession was voluntary, including whether the confession was extracted by any sort of threats or violence or obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, or by the exertion of any improper influence.

2021It did allege that defendant’s statements were involuntary and included a discussion of the test for voluntariness set out in Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28 (1976) (per curiam). ¶5 Defendant pointed out the factors used to determine whether a confession was voluntary, including whether the confession was extracted by any sort of threats or violence or obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, or by the exertion of any improper influence.

2017While the first step in a plain error analysis is usually a discussion of whether error exists (People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124-25 (2009)), when it is clear that the claimed error could not have affected the outcome of the case, courts may bypass the “meaningless endeavor of determining whether error occurred.” People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 148 .

2017While the first step in a plain error analysis is usually a discussion of whether error exists (People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124-25 (2009)), when it is clear that the claimed error could not have affected the outcome of the case, courts may bypass the “meaningless endeavor of determining whether error occurred.” People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 148 .

2017Peppers Doctrine ¶ 44 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court’s order requiring it to produce the documents is especially inappropriate because defendants are attempting to litigate facts that overlap with the facts at issue in the underlying litigation in contravention of the “Peppers doctrine,” which was set forth by our supreme court in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers, 64 Ill. 2d 187 (1976).

2017Peppers Doctrine ¶ 44 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court’s order requiring it to produce the documents is especially inappropriate because defendants are attempting to litigate facts that overlap with the facts at issue in the underlying litigation in contravention of the “Peppers doctrine,” which was set forth by our supreme court in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers, 64 Ill. 2d 187 (1976).

2011The defendant relies on People v. Bell, 196 Ill. 2d 343 , 751 N.E.2d 1143 (2001).

2011The defendant relies on People v. Bell, 196 Ill. 2d 343 , 751 N.E.2d 1143 (2001).

2006Discussion The defendant relied on the Third District Appellate Court's decision in People v. Phillips, 352 Ill.

2006Discussion The defendant relied on the Third District Appellate Court’s decision in People v. Phillips, 352 Ill.

2004Elders, 349 Ill.

2004Elders, 349 Ill.App.3d at 584 , 285 Ill.Dec. 829 , 812 N.E.2d 649 ; Eyen, 291 Ill.App.3d at 43 , 225 Ill.Dec. 249 , 683 N.E.2d 193 .

2000The question of attorney fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( Rennacker v. Rennacker , 156 Ill.

2000The question of attorney fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (Rennacker v. Rennacker, 156 Ill.

1997Harinek v. City of Chicago , 283 Ill.

1997Harinek v. City of Chicago, 283 Ill.

2021See People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 508 , 939 N.E.2d 463, 469 (2010) (citing Courtney when explaining how to determine if a statutory exception is an element the State must negate or a matter of a defense); People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 27 , 971 N.E.2d 1058 (citing Courtney in the discussion of whether an exception was an element of the offense that the State needed to prove); People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846, ¶ 14 , 49 N.E.3d 389 (citing Courtney approvingly when discussing how courts evaluate whether a statutory exception must be negated by the State).

2021See People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 508 , 939 N.E.2d 463, 469 (2010) (citing Courtney when explaining how to determine if a statutory exception is an element the State must negate or a matter of a defense); People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 27 , 971 N.E.2d 1058 (citing Courtney in the discussion of whether an exception was an element of the offense that the State needed to prove); People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846, ¶ 14 , 49 N.E.3d 389 (citing Courtney approvingly when discussing how courts evaluate whether a statutory exception must be negated by the State).

2021See People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 508 , 939 N.E.2d 463, 469 (2010) (citing Courtney when explaining how to determine if a statutory exception is an element the State must negate or a matter of a defense); People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 27 , 971 N.E.2d 1058 (citing Courtney in the discussion of whether an exception was an element of the offense that the State needed to prove); People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846, ¶ 14 , 49 N.E.3d 389 (citing Courtney approvingly when discussing how courts evaluate whether a statutory exception must be negated by the State).

2021See People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 508 , 939 N.E.2d 463, 469 (2010) (citing Courtney when explaining how to determine if a statutory exception is an element the State must negate or a matter of a defense); People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 27 , 971 N.E.2d 1058 (citing Courtney in the discussion of whether an exception was an element of the offense that the State needed to prove); People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846, ¶ 14 , 49 N.E.3d 389 (citing Courtney approvingly when discussing how courts evaluate whether a statutory exception must be negated by the State).

2021We, therefore, find Courtney’s line of cases more persuasive than either Smith or the cases cited by defendant. ¶ 32 Despite the long-standing supreme court case law stating exceptions are matters of defense, defendant cited two appellate court decisions that said: “Where a criminal statute contains an exemption and the legislature has not set forth a provision within the statute allocating the burden of persuasion as to the exemption, we presume that the burden is on the State, not the defendant.” Cannon, 2015 IL App (3d) 130672, ¶ 21 (citing People v. Perkins, 225 Ill.

2016Shipley v. Hoke, 2014 IL App (4th) 130810, ¶ 74 .

2015Larsen’s stance also conflicts with the clearly stated legislative intent of section 10.2 of the Hospital Act to facilitate the ‘candid and conscientious evaluation of clinical practices’ to improve patient care by encouraging ‘peer review by health care providers.’ Id.

2011Pancoe v. Singh, 376 Ill.App.3d 900, 911 , 315 Ill.Dec. 288 , 876 N.E.2d 288 (2007) (using the terms "impossibility" and "impracticability" interchangeably in a discussion of the doctrine); Illinois-American Water Company v. The City of Peoria, 332 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1106 , 266 Ill.Dec. 277 , 774 N.E.2d 383 (2002) (discussing the very *299 "similar" doctrines of "commercial frustration" and "impossibility"). ¶ 62 Plaintiff makes this very argument, that the trial court used the word "impossible" in a lay sense, and the majority rejects this argument by stating that its review of the record convi

2011Pancoe v. Singh, 376 Ill.App.3d 900, 911 , 315 Ill.Dec. 288 , 876 N.E.2d 288 (2007) (using the terms "impossibility" and "impracticability" interchangeably in a discussion of the doctrine); Illinois-American Water Company v. The City of Peoria, 332 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1106 , 266 Ill.Dec. 277 , 774 N.E.2d 383 (2002) (discussing the very *299 "similar" doctrines of "commercial frustration" and "impossibility"). ¶ 62 Plaintiff makes this very argument, that the trial court used the word "impossible" in a lay sense, and the majority rejects this argument by stating that its review of the record convi

2007The majority fails to adequately support this holding, though, utilizing only a discussion of waiver and pointing to "the interests of consistent jurisprudence." 224 Ill.2d at 108 , 308 Ill.Dec. at 752 , 862 N.E.2d at 955 .

2007The majority fails to adequately support this holding, though, utilizing only a discussion of waiver and pointing to "the interests of consistent jurisprudence." 224 Ill.2d at 108 , 308 Ill.Dec. at 752 , 862 N.E.2d at 955 .