7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2021 1 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. Collinsgreen1 sentence1998The circuit court denied the DOC’s motion to quash the order, and the DOC appeals (see 166 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1); People v. Collins, 249 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2015The court granted the DOC’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that under the rationale of Jackson, section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code did not confer upon plaintiffs the right to challenge the DOC’s policies or commissary prices. ¶ 17 ANALYSIS ¶ 18 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting the DOC’s motion to dismiss, where plaintiffs did have standing to enforce section 3-7-2a and the Fourth District’s decision in -3- Jackson is contrary to our supreme court’s decision in Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365 (2007). 2015The court granted the DOC’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that under the rationale of Jackson, section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code did not confer upon plaintiffs the right to challenge the DOC’s policies or commissary prices. ¶ 17 ANALYSIS 4 ¶ 18 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting the DOC’s motion to dismiss, where plaintiffs did have standing to enforce section 3-7-2a and the Fourth District’s decision in Jackson is contrary to our supreme court’s decision in Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365 (2007). | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Jackson v. Randle
green
2 sentences2015The complaint alleged that the DOC had been overcharging plaintiffs for goods sold at the prison commissary in violation of section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2008)). ¶2 The DOC filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)), arguing that the inmates lacked standing to enforce section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code against it. ¶3 The trial court granted the DOC’s motion to dismiss. ¶4 Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that this court’s recent decision in Jackson v. 2015The complaint alleged that the DOC had been overcharging plaintiffs for goods sold at the prison commissary in violation of section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2008)). ¶2 The DOC filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)), arguing that the inmates lacked standing to enforce section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code against it. ¶3 The trial court granted the DOC’s motion to dismiss. ¶4 Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that this court’s recent decision in Jackson v. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Thompson v. Lane
green
2 sentences2004App. 3d at 864 , 551 N.E.2d at 737 , this court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of DOC’s motion to dismiss an inmate’s petition for writ of mandamus, reasoning, in part, that the committee’s conclusory statement of the reasons underlying its disciplinary decision did not comport with due process. 2004App. 3d at 864 , 551 N.E.2d at 737 , this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of DOC's motion to dismiss an inmate's petition for writ of mandamus , reasoning, in part, that the committee's conclusory statement of the reasons underlying its disciplinary decision did not comport with due process. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Lutkauskas v. Ricker
green
2 sentences2020Specifically, plaintiff asserts (1) DOC failed to establish an affirmative matter defeating his claim and (2) the arrest warrant contained in his master record file was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. ¶ 13 DOC responds, arguing the trial court’s dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s FOIA request was “barred by the Corrections Code, which prevents disclosure of prisoners’ master record files.” ¶ 14 “A motion brought pursuant to section 2-619 admits the sufficiency of the complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats that claim.” Lutkauskas v. Ricker, 2020Specifically, plaintiff asserts (1) DOC failed to establish an affirmative matter defeating his claim and (2) the arrest warrant contained in his master record file was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. ¶ 13 DOC responds, arguing the trial court’s dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s FOIA request was “barred by the Corrections Code, which prevents disclosure of prisoners’ master record files.” ¶ 14 “A motion brought pursuant to section 2-619 admits the sufficiency of the complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats that claim.” Lutkauskas v. Ricker, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.