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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mooney v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Londongreen1 sentence1976App. 328 , 335, 112 N.E. 2d 626, 628 ; see also Mooney v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 54 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sims
green
2 sentences1980App. 2d 166 , 261 N.E.2d 519 .) Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in not adhering to the four-point test in People v. Sims (1969), 113 Ill. 1977(People v. Ballinger (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 620 , 255 N.E.2d 10 .) Defendant contends that the trial court did not adhere to the following four point test enumerated in People v. Sims (1969), 113 Ill. | 2 | 1977–1980 |
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1992When this court held in Cloninger that the insurer must explain the coverage, we adopted the four-point test for commercial reasonableness of an offer established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. (Minn. 1982), 318 N.W.2d 849 . 1992When this court held in Cloninger that the insurer must explain the coverage, we adopted the four-point test for commercial reasonableness of an offer established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. (Minn. 1982), 318 N.W.2d 849 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cloninger v. National General Insurance
green
2 sentences1992Stat. 1987, ch. 73, par. 755a — 2(1).) Under Cloninger v. National General Insurance Co. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 419 , 488 N.E.2d 548 , that offer had to satisfy a four-point test for commercial reasonableness. 1992Stat. 1987, ch. 73, par. 755a — 2(1).) Under Cloninger v. National General Insurance Co. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 419 , 488 N.E.2d 548 , that offer had to satisfy a four-point test for commercial reasonableness. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Nixon
red
1 sentence1981Ed. 2d 1039 , 94 S. Ct. 3090 , the Supreme Court of the United States set out a four-point test for determining whether the issuance of pretrial subpoenas is required by the sixth amendment. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Pearson
neutral
1 sentence1980App. 2d 166 , 261 N.E.2d 519 .) Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in not adhering to the four-point test in People v. Sims (1969), 113 Ill. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Keesee
green
1 sentence1980App. 2d 58, 61 , 251 N.E.2d 795, 797 , which provides as follows: “If testimony is to be permitted, the court’s inquiry must, with reason, satisfy the judge that the witness is sufficiently mature (1) to receive correct impressions by his senses, (2) to recollect these impressions, (3) to understand questions and narrate answers intelligently, and (4) to appreciate the moral duty to tell the truth (and comprehend the meaning of the oath).” (See People v. Keeser (1977), 47 Ill. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
The PEOPLE v. Ballinger
green
1 sentence1977(People v. Ballinger (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 620 , 255 N.E.2d 10 .) Defendant contends that the trial court did not adhere to the following four point test enumerated in People v. Sims (1969), 113 Ill. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
DeWolf v. Central National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1977(People v. Ballinger (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 620 , 255 N.E.2d 10 .) Defendant contends that the trial court did not adhere to the following four point test enumerated in People v. Sims (1969), 113 Ill. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In Re Conservatorship of Farlin
neutral
1 sentence1976The court applied a four-point test to determine the relationship: “who first set him in motion, who could control his action, who is to pay him, and whose interest was he there to protect.” ( 350 Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Moone v. Commercial Casualty Insurance
green
1 sentence1976App. 328 , 335, 112 N.E. 2d 626, 628 ; see also Mooney v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 54 Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.