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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keefe v. Aluminum Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2025Rosenbaum also alleges the -17- 1-24-0039 Samlers knew or should have known he did not cash most of the checks Ruth sent him, which counters undue influence. ¶ 69 To lack probable cause means that no set of facts “ ‘would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that he [or she] had a justifiable claim against the defendant.’ ” See Grundhoefer v. Sorin, 2018 IL App (1st) 171068, ¶ 14 (quoting Keefe, 166 Ill. 2020Grundhoefer contends summary judgment was improper where a question of fact exists as to the element of probable cause. ¶ 14 Probable cause is defined as a “set of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that he had a justifiable claim against the defendant.” Keefe v. Aluminum Co. of America, 166 Ill. | 3 | 4 |
Grundhoffer v. Soringreen1 sentence2025Rosenbaum also alleges the -17- 1-24-0039 Samlers knew or should have known he did not cash most of the checks Ruth sent him, which counters undue influence. ¶ 69 To lack probable cause means that no set of facts “ ‘would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that he [or she] had a justifiable claim against the defendant.’ ” See Grundhoefer v. Sorin, 2018 IL App (1st) 171068, ¶ 14 (quoting Keefe, 166 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2024When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Virginiared1 sentence2024When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hulcher v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.
green
2 sentences1988(Hulcher v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. (1980), 88 Ill. 1988Hulcher v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. (1980), 88 Ill. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Ely v. National Super Markets, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988App. 3d 752 , 500 N.E.2d 120 .) It is defined as a set of facts which would lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that he has a justifiable claim to prosecute against the party charged. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.