Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
57 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2024 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Gordongreen2 sentences2006App. 3d 1038, 1042 (1998) (trial court improperly determined that petitioner established a prima facie case at the ex parte hearing and that respondent failed to overcome the prima facie case; instead, court should have considered whether petitioner's evidence at the order of protection hearing established abuse by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Marriage of Gordon, 233 Ill. 2006App. 3d 1038, 1042 (1998) (trial court improperly determined that petitioner established a prima facie case at the ex parte hearing and that respondent failed to overcome the prima facie case; instead, court should have considered whether petitioner’s evidence at the order of protection hearing established abuse by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Marriage of Gordon, 233 Ill. | 3 | 5 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2006Defendant argues that the court erred by dismissing the motion in an ex parte hearing, without providing him notice or any opportunity to argue in favor of his motion for DNA testing. “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” In re Application of the County Collector, 217 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (2005), quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 2006Defendant argues that the court erred by dismissing the motion in an ex parte hearing, without providing him notice or any opportunity to argue in favor of his motion for DNA testing. "`An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'" In re Application of the County Collector, 217 Ill.2d 1, 33 , 298 Ill.Dec. 14 , 838 N.E.2d 907 (2005), quoting Mullane v. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Application of County Collectorgreen2 sentences2006Defendant argues that the court erred by dismissing the motion in an ex parte hearing, without providing him notice or any opportunity to argue in favor of his motion for DNA testing. “ ‘An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” In re Application of the County Collector, 217 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (2005), quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 2006Defendant argues that the court erred by dismissing the motion in an ex parte hearing, without providing him notice or any opportunity to argue in favor of his motion for DNA testing. "`An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'" In re Application of the County Collector, 217 Ill.2d 1, 33 , 298 Ill.Dec. 14 , 838 N.E.2d 907 (2005), quoting Mullane v. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Gardegreen2 sentences2020Id. at 307 . 2020Id. at 307 . | 1 | 3 |
United Conveyor Corp. v. Allstate Insurance Co.green1 sentence2024See United Conveyor Corp., 2017 IL App (1st) 162314, ¶ 37 (the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was not timely where the plaintiff sought to amend its complaint 22 days after the trial court entered its summary judgment ruling and more than three years after it filed its complaint). ¶ 44 Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred by conducting an ex parte hearing first and later treating the motion as a “rehearing.” This is disingenuous. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2024“As such, ‘basic notions of fairness dictate that a petitioner be afforded notice of, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to, any more or responsive pleadings by the State.’ ” People v. Wells, 2023 IL 127169, ¶ 25 (quoting Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 20 ). -3- 1-23-1490 ¶ 11 Our supreme court held in Stoecker that a section 2-1401 petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the circuit court dismissed his petition during an ex parte hearing without notifying the petitioner or allowing him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State’s motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Simpsongreen1 sentence2024See Black’s Law Dictionary 657 (9th ed. 2009) (an ex parte hearing is held “without notice to” the opposing party); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Simpson, 2015 IL App (1st) 142925, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. McGuiregreen1 sentence2020See People v. McGuire, 2017 IL App (4th) 150695, ¶ 29 (when defense counsel affirmatively acquiesces to actions taken by the trial court, any potential claim of error on appeal is waived, and a defendant’s only available challenge is to claim he received ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶ 28 That acquiescence by defense counsel functioned as the defendant’s affirmative waiver to challenge this issue, which, in turn, is not subject to the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2020Stewart, 2018 IL App (3d) 160205, ¶ 20 (“[f]orfeited errors may be subject to plain-error review, but waiver forecloses review of a claim predicated upon the waived right”). ¶ 29 CONCLUSION ¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. - 13 - 1-18-2671 ¶ 31 Affirmed. - 14 - | 1 | 1 |
| Stanley v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
Teitelbaum v. Reliable Welding Co.green1 sentence1994See Teitelbaum v. Reliable Welding Co. (1982), 106 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stoecker
green
2 sentences2024“As such, ‘basic notions of fairness dictate that a petitioner be afforded notice of, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to, any more or responsive pleadings by the State.’ ” People v. Wells, 2023 IL 127169, ¶ 25 (quoting Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 20 ). -3- 1-23-1490 ¶ 11 Our supreme court held in Stoecker that a section 2-1401 petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the circuit court dismissed his petition during an ex parte hearing without notifying the petitioner or allowing him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State’s motion to dismiss. 2021However, there is “a strong presumption that most errors of constitutional dimension are subject to harmless error analysis.” Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 23 . ¶ 25 Our supreme court recently held that the erroneous dismissal of a petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016)) during an ex parte hearing was subject to harmless error analysis rather than automatic reversal. | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2016The pre-search proceeding will frequently be marked by haste, *** [and the] urgency will not always permit the magistrate to make an extended independent examination of the affiant or other witnesses.” Id. at 169 . ¶ 63 We, therefore, reject the bright-line rule of Gorosteata and hold that the presence of the informant at the ex parte hearing on the warrant application does not, standing alone, foreclose the possibility of a Franks hearing. 2016The pre-search proceeding will frequently be marked by haste, *** [and the] urgency will not always permit the magistrate to make an extended independent examination of the affiant or other witnesses.” Id. at 169 . ¶ 63 We, therefore, reject the bright-line rule of Gorosteata and hold that the presence of the informant at the ex parte hearing on the warrant application does not, standing alone, foreclose the possibility of a Franks hearing. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Application of the County Collector v. Lowe
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 214 . 2015Id. at 214 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ryan v. Monson
neutral
2 sentences2015Id. at 221-22 . 2014Id. at 221-22 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Nancy A.
green
2 sentences2011In re Nancy A., 344 Ill. 2011In re Nancy A., 344 Ill. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People Ex Rel. Minteer v. Kozin
green
2 sentences2007Kozin, 297 Ill. 2007Kozin, 297 Ill.App.3d at 1041 , 232 Ill.Dec. 149 , 697 N.E.2d 891 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2006The October 1993 version of this manual states: “ ‘[I]t is the practice to wait at least 15 minutes after the scheduled hour before proceeding to an ex-parte hearing and award.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Zietara, 361 Ill. 2006The October 1993 version of this manual states: A >[I]t is the practice to wait at least 15 minutes after the scheduled hour before proceeding to an ex-parte hearing and award.= @ (Emphasis added.) Zietara, 361 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co.
green
2 sentences1986In Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 609 , there was evidence that at an ex parte hearing on damages, the plaintiff introduced medical and hospital expenses for a gallbladder operation which had no connection to the injury claimed. 1965The only issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant Reichhold’s petition to vacate the default order and judgment under Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 110, §72). 1 A motion to vacate a judgment under Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act is governed by the principle enunciated in Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill2d 609, at page 613, 190 NE2d 348 : Since our decision in Ellman v. De Ruiter, 412 Ill 285, subsequently adopted by the legislature (Laws of 1955, p 2270,) it has become certain that a petition filed under section 72, such as we h | 2 | 1965–1986 |
Ollman v. Ollman
green
2 sentences1966Ollman v. Ollman, 396 Ill 176, 71 NE2d 50 . 1955In Ollman v. Ollman, 396 Ill. 176 , the court says: “. . . | 2 | 1955–1966 |
In Re Marriage of Bates
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 515 . 8 ¶ 25 As Manuel notes on appeal, there is no transcript of the ex parte hearing in the record, and we therefore rely on the pleading itself to review the circuit court’s denial of emergency relief. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sharma v. Division of Professional Regulation of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
green
1 sentence2023Additionally, “[i]n the event that the Secretary suspends, temporarily, the license of a physician without a hearing, a hearing by the Medical Board shall be held within 15 days after such suspension has occurred and shall be concluded without appreciable delay.” Id. ¶ 80 Here, the Director held an ex parte hearing on the Department’s petition for temporary suspension of Dr. Yetman’s license. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Chambers
green
2 sentences2022The court stated that it rejected “the bright- line rule of Gorosteata and [held] that the presence of the informant at the ex parte hearing on the warrant application does not, standing alone, foreclose the possibility of a Franks hearing.” Id. 2022The court overruled Gorosteata and found that “all cases applying the rule enunciated therein [were] hereby overruled.” Id. ¶ 43 At the time of defendant’s plea, this court followed the rule in Moser, Phillips, and Gorosteata. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Stoecker
green
1 sentence2020He further argued that his counsel’s performance was deficient. ¶ 13 The appellate court affirmed. 2019 IL App (3d) 160781, ¶¶ 10-20 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2017On appeal, this court determined that the ex parte hearing was improper, concluding that "either counsel for both parties should have been allowed to be present during the in camera proceeding [citation] or both sides excluded [citation]." (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 580 , 108 Ill.Dec. 244 , 508 N.E.2d 405 . 2017On appeal, this court determined that the ex parte hearing was improper, concluding that "either counsel for both parties should have been allowed to be present during the in camera proceeding [citation] or both sides excluded [citation]." (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 580 , 108 Ill.Dec. 244 , 508 N.E.2d 405 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Wrice
green
2 sentences2017People v. Wrice , 2012 IL 111860 , ¶ 50, 357 Ill.Dec. 33 , 962 N.E.2d 934 . 2017People v. Wrice , 2012 IL 111860 , ¶ 50, 357 Ill.Dec. 33 , 962 N.E.2d 934 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Suggs
green
1 sentence2016Kenosha officers informed Schletz that, because of the Memorial Day holiday, defendant would not appear before a Wisconsin judge about the probation hold until Tuesday, May 29, 2007. ¶ 28 At some point during the day of May 27, 2007, defendant was charged by information with one count of attempted robbery of the Ma & Pa. Additionally, a judge in Lake County held an ex parte hearing and determined that probable cause existed to arrest defendant for the Ma & Pa offenses and signed a warrant for defendant’s arrest. ¶ 29 Later in the morning of Sunday, May 27, 2007, Schletz and Deputy Chief George | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lyon v. Department of Children & Family Services
green
2 sentences2009Lyon, 209 Ill. 2d at 282 , 807 N.E.2d at 436 . 2009Lyon, 209 Ill. 2d at 282 , 807 N.E.2d at 436 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Rigoberto Moya-Gomez Celestino Orlando Estevez Amado Raphael Leon Adalberto Herrera and Menelao Orlando Estevez
green
1 sentence2000Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d at 729 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Childs
green
2 sentences1994The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court's ex parte instruction to the jury during its deliberations was reversible error. ( 230 Ill.App.3d 993 , 172 Ill.Dec. 829 , 596 N.E.2d 108 .) We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315). 1994The appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction, holding that the trial court’s ex parte instruction to the jury during its deliberations was reversible error. ( 230 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Kovacs v. Cooper green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Barker green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Sanders v. Shephard green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Bonanza International, Inc. v. Mar-Fil, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Foutch v. O'BRYANT green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Agran v. Checker Taxi Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| O'CONNELL v. St. Francis Hospital green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| James v. Rini v. Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| The People v. Elias green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| DeMet v. DeMet neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Bettendorf-Stanford Bakery Equipment Co. v. International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW: Local Union No. 1906 neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Interstate Contractors v. Industrial Commission green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Stehman v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| McKeon v. McKeon green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Zeve v. Levy green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Bradshaw v. Bradshaw neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Acme Excavating Co. v. State Bank neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| City of Chicago v. Lord green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Inland Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.