Cooper defendant (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

Cooper defendant in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Shunickgreen
illappct · 2022 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076 , ¶¶ 16- - 16 - 20, and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his g

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076, ¶¶ 16-20 , and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pl

22
People v. Arriagagreen
illappct · 2023 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076 , ¶¶ 16- - 16 - 20, and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his g

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076, ¶¶ 16-20 , and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pl

22
People v. Coopergreen
illappct · 2021 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076 , ¶¶ 16- - 16 - 20, and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his g

2024Compare 2022 IL App (4th) 220019, ¶¶ 22-24 , Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076, ¶¶ 16-20 , and Liner, 2015 IL App (3d) 140167 , ¶¶ 22-26 (refused to remand for compliance with notice requirements under Rule 12(b)(6)), with Cooper, 2021 IL App (1st) 190022, ¶¶ 21-22 (remand allowed for defendant to cure jurisdictional defect by supplementing record with compliant Rule 12(b)(6) certificate). ¶ 69 Petitioner relies on Cooper, in which “[t]he first apparent remand of this kind occurred.” After pleading guilty and being sentenced, the Cooper defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pl

22
People v. Garrettgreen
ill · 1990 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Unless and until it does, we cannot properly consider the merits of Mr. Cooper’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. ¶ 22 This court recently recognized that, “when the appellate court finds further trial court hearings are called for in a criminal case,” the procedure preferred by our supreme court “is to remand for those hearings while retaining jurisdiction.” People v. Hill, 2021 IL App (1st) 131973-B, ¶ 15 (citing People v. Garrett, 139 Ill. 2d 189, 194 (1990)).

2021The authority to do so lies in Rule 615(b)(2), which permits a reviewing court to “ ‘set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to or dependent upon the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.’ ” Id. (quoting Ill.

11
People v. Howellgreen
illappct · 1983 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984See also People v. Howell (1983), 119 Ill.

1984See also People v. Howell (1983), 119 Ill.

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
Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. green
ill · 1997
2 sentences

2006Moreover, Ford filed its motion to dismiss more than one year after the Cooper case was published. 8 Dubina held that “[an] order of voluntary dismissal, because it disposed of all matters pending before the circuit court, rendered all orders which were final in nature, but which were not previously appealable, immediately final and appealable.” Dubina, 178 Ill. 2d at 503 , 687 N.E.2d at 875 .

2006Moreover, Ford filed its motion to dismiss more than one year after the Cooper case was published. 8 Dubina held that “[an] order of voluntary dismissal, because it disposed of all matters pending before the circuit court, rendered all orders which were final in nature, but which were not previously appealable, immediately final and appealable.” Dubina, 178 Ill. 2d at 503 , 687 N.E.2d at 875 .

12006–2006
Estate of Cooper v. HUMANA HEALTH PLAN green
illappct · 2003
1 sentence

2006App. 3d 845 , 789 N.E.2d 361 (2003) was published. 7 The 7 Ford's timing argument is belied by the fact that the Cooper defendants filed 12 1-04-3800 Cooper court applied the holdings in Rein and Dubina 8 to facts similar to those in the instant case, and concluded that the partial summary judgment entered in the first lawsuit filed by plaintiff became a final judgment upon the voluntary dismissal of the remaining claims and barred the second refiled suit.

12006–2006
Gouker v. Winnebago County Board of Supervisors green
ill · 1967
2 sentences

1990After hearing oral argument on Cooper’s motion, Judge Lyons denied the motion, citing Gouker v. Winnebago County Board of Supervisors (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 473 , 228 N.E.2d 881 , and noting that he previously held a pretrial conference with the parties involved.

1990After hearing oral argument on Cooper’s motion, Judge Lyons denied the motion, citing Gouker v. Winnebago County Board of Supervisors (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 473 , 228 N.E.2d 881 , and noting that he previously held a pretrial conference with the parties involved.

11990–1990
Intini v. Schwartz green
illappct · 1979
1 sentence

1990The case Intini v. Schwartz (1979), 78 Ill.

11990–1990
Anderson v. City of Wheaton green
illappct · 1975
1 sentence

1990App. 3d 100 , 323 N.E.2d 129 .) Appellees assert that Cooper’s motion for a change of venue was dated March 11, 1988, and thus, Cooper should have notified appellees of its intention to bring the motion for a change of venue at that time.

11990–1990

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1899–2025) TX 18 (1970–2025) FL 17 (1978–2025) GA 14 (1995–2025) DC 13 (1986–2026) NJ 10 (1985–2026) PA 8 (1986–2021) IN 8 (1992–2018) IL 7 (1984–2024) MI 6 (1995–2019) WI 5 (1980–2022) MO 5 (2004–2023) DE 4 (2021–2026) OH 4 (1993–2007) NC 3 (1982–2006) KS 3 (2006–2017) MT 3 (1988–2010) OK 3 (1991–1998) NV 3 (2018–2018) NY 3 (1983–2016) MD 3 (2014–2021) MS 2 (1877–2018) WA 2 (1981–2017) TN 2 (2008–2010) AL 2 (1994–2008) LA 2 (1968–2010) SC 2 (2000–2010) IA 2 (1989–2018) WY 2 (2008–2018) NM 2 (1997–2011)

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