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 1978–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fox v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2012App. 3d at 827 , 463 N.E.2d at 862 ; Fox v. Department of Revenue, 34 Ill. 2d 358, 360 , 215 N.E.2d 271, 272 (1966) (a nunc pro tunc entry cannot rest on a recollection, or on a new affidavit or testimony). ¶ 30 In Johnson, the bank argued the entry of judgment against the bank individually was “totally unsupported by any of the official records in the file and was an obvious clerical error in recording the judgment.” Johnson, 123 Ill. 2012App. 3d at 827 , 463 N.E.2d at 862 ; Fox v. Department of Revenue, 34 Ill. 2d 358, 360 , 215 N.E.2d 271, 272 (1966) (a nunc pro tunc entry cannot rest on a recollection, or on a new affidavit or testimony). ¶ 30 In Johnson, the bank argued the entry of judgment against the bank individually was “totally unsupported by any of the official records in the file and was an obvious clerical error in recording the judgment.” Johnson, 123 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Breedenred2 sentences2017See, e.g., People v. Breeden, 2014 IL App (4th) 121049 , ¶ 56 (fine was void where it was below the statutory minimum), vacated by No. 118880 (Ill. 2017See, e.g., People v. Breeden, 2014 IL App (4th) 121049 , ¶ 56 (fine was void where it was below the statutory minimum), vacated by No. 118880 (Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Castleberry
green
2 sentences2017We further encourage an open line of communication between the public defender’s office and the State’s Attorney’s office, so that when defense counsel discovers an obvious clerical error in the imposition of fines and fees, he or she can contact the State’s Attorney, and the error can be corrected expeditiously at the trial level by means of an agreed order. ¶8 Without oversight and open communication at the trial level, the State Appellate Defender frequently brings these questions in the first instance to the appellate court, where the justification for addressing them on the merits is, at 2017We further encourage an open line of communication between the public defender’s office and the State’s Attorney’s office, so that when defense counsel discovers an obvious clerical error in the imposition of fines and fees, he -3- No. 1-14-3800 or she can contact the State’s Attorney, and the error can be corrected expeditiously at the trial level by means of an agreed order. ¶8 Without oversight and open communication at the trial level, the State Appellate Defender frequently brings these questions in the first instance to the appellate court, where the justification for addressing them on | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences2012App. 3d at 827 , 463 N.E.2d at 862 ; Fox v. Department of Revenue, 34 Ill. 2d 358, 360 , 215 N.E.2d 271, 272 (1966) (a nunc pro tunc entry cannot rest on a recollection, or on a new affidavit or testimony). ¶ 30 In Johnson, the bank argued the entry of judgment against the bank individually was “totally unsupported by any of the official records in the file and was an obvious clerical error in recording the judgment.” Johnson, 123 Ill. 2012App. 3d at 827 , 463 N.E.2d at 862 ; Fox v. Department of Revenue, 34 Ill. 2d 358, 360 , 215 N.E.2d 271, 272 (1966) (a nunc pro tunc entry cannot rest on a recollection, or on a new affidavit or testimony). ¶ 30 In Johnson, the bank argued the entry of judgment against the bank individually was “totally unsupported by any of the official records in the file and was an obvious clerical error in recording the judgment.” Johnson, 123 Ill. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Young
green
1 sentence1990(People v. Young (1978), 60 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ashline v. Verble
neutral
1 sentence1988As stated in Ashline v. Verble (1984), 130 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1978(People v. Gonzalez (1974), 24 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.