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 1 courts 2012–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Bielawskigreen2 sentences2013In re Marriage of Bielawski, 328 Ill. 2012In re Marriage of Bielawski, 328 Ill.App.3d 243 , 262 Ill.Dec. 137 , 764 N.E.2d 1254 (2002). ¶ 32 Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act requires that the division of marital property upon the dissolution of marriage be in "just proportions" in light of the relevant circumstances of the parties. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2008). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Marriage of Roepenack
green
2 sentences2016Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 30 ; Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198, ¶ 31 . ¶ 38 In this case, Jeffrey argues that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. 2016Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 30 ; Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198, ¶ 31 . ¶ 38 In this case, Jeffrey argues that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In re Marriage of Arjmand
green
2 sentences2016Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 30 ; Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198, ¶ 31 . ¶ 38 In this case, Jeffrey argues that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. 2016Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 30 ; Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198, ¶ 31 . ¶ 38 In this case, Jeffrey argues that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In re Marriage of Labuz
green
1 sentence2022Correspondingly, “[t]o determine whether an agreement is unconscionable, the court must consider two factors: (1) the circumstances and conditions under which the agreement was made; and (2) the economic circumstances of the parties that result from the agreement.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.