timeliness requirement in Illinois

2010Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal, 277 Ill.App.3d at 727 , 214 Ill.

2010Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal, 277 Ill.

2008Post-conviction counsel violated Rule 651(c) because the record demonstrated he did not understand the filing deadline in the Act or the exception to the timeliness bar for lack of culpable negligence in the late filing. 367 Ill.

2008Postconviction counsel violated Rule 651(c) because the record demonstrated he did not understand the filing deadline in the Act or the exception to the timeliness bar for lack of culpable negligence in the late filing. 367 Ill.App.3d at 906-08 , 306 Ill.Dec. 83 , 856 N.E.2d 1178 .

2007Although Supreme Court Rule 606(b) (188 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)) generally sets forth the methods to invoke this court's appellate jurisdiction, in MacArthur this court characterized revestment as "an exception to the timeliness requirement[s] of Rule 606(b)." MacArthur, 313 Ill.

2007Although Supreme Court Rule 606(b) (188 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)) generally sets forth the methods to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction, in MacArthur this court characterized revestment as “an exception to the timeliness requirement[s] of Rule 606(b).” MacArthur, 313 Ill.

2007I do not believe that the appellate court can create a common-law exception to the timeliness requirement of Rule 606(b), as we clearly do not have the power to excuse noncompliance with our supreme court's rules (Lyles, 217 Ill. 2d at 216 (appellate court does not have the authority to excuse compliance with filing requirements of the supreme court rules governing appeals); Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 308-09 ).

2007I do not believe that the appellate court can create a common-law exception to the timeliness requirement of Rule 606(b), as we clearly do not have the power to excuse noncompliance with our supreme court’s rules (Lyles, 217 Ill. 2d at 216 (appellate court does not have the authority to excuse compliance with filing requirements of the supreme court rules governing appeals); Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 308-09 ).

2001Maxwell, 272 Ill.

2001Maxwell , 272 Ill.

2001Defendant contends that the supreme court, in Catalano , 29 Ill. 2d at 203 , set out a timeliness test for determining whether a motion to withdraw a jury waiver should be granted and that the trial court here abused its discretion in failing to apply that test in ruling on defendant's motion to withdraw his waiver.

2001In Catalano , 29 Ill. 2d at 203 , the court stated that the question of whether a defendant's motion for withdrawal of a jury waiver is timely made "involves the question of whether such motion may be made after the commencement of the trial and it also involves the question whether such motion, although made prior to the actual commencement of trial, was made at a time when the granting thereof would result in delay of the trial, would impede justice or prejudice the State, or would inconvenience the witnesses." We find that the supreme court, in Catalano , was not enunciating a timeliness te

1999Thus, the appellate court correctly reasoned that an applicable exception to this timeliness requirement must exist for her to prevail. 299 Ill.App.3d at 813 , 233 Ill.Dec. 906 , 701 N.E.2d 1180 .

1999Thus, the appellate court correctly reasoned that an applicable exception to this timeliness requirement must exist for her to prevail. 299 Ill.App.3d at 813 , 233 Ill.Dec. 906 , 701 N.E.2d 1180 .

1993App. 3d 661, 666-67 , 540 N.E.2d 485, 488-89 , which respondent cites, wherein a challenge to the validity of a consent to adoption was involved but. no issue was raised concerning the timeliness of the challenge to the consent for adoption.

1993App.3d 661, 666-67 , 132 Ill.Dec. 745, 748-49 , 540 N.E.2d 485, 488-89 , which respondent cites, wherein a challenge to the validity of a consent to adoption was involved but no issue was raised concerning the timeliness of the challenge to the consent for adoption.

2026Id. at 104 . ¶ 26 A judgment is void when the court that entered it lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction.

2025Id. ¶ 30 Parenthetically, we also note that the court did not dismiss Torres’s petition based on - 12 - 1-24-0332 timeliness alone.

2025In the alternative, the State argued that under Cooper, 2025 IL 130946 , the timeliness requirement was directory and thus automatic dismissal is not appropriate. ¶ 14 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike.

2022People v. Oliver, 2021 IL App (1st) 181605 , ¶ 19.

2020“To establish equitable estoppel, the party claiming estoppel must demonstrate [among other things] that *** the other party misrepresented or concealed material facts [and that] the other party knew at the time the representations were made that the representations were untrue.” In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, ¶ 25 . ¶ 24 Defendant correctly recognizes that these principles have been applied in civil cases, but he cites no authority applying them to bar a timeliness challenge to a section 2-1401 petition.

2018App. 3d 968 , 344 Ill.Dec. 399 , 936 N.E.2d 1156 (2010) (holding that section 5-9-2 of the Code does not impose a timeliness requirement and the circuit court retains jurisdiction to hear a motion to revoke fines).

2018App. 3d 968 , 344 Ill.Dec. 399 , 936 N.E.2d 1156 (2010) (holding that section 5-9-2 of the Code does not impose a timeliness requirement and the circuit court retains jurisdiction to hear a motion to revoke fines).

2015The seller, if he is to invoke a timeliness claim, should expressly state so rather than stand mute or provide only the information - 26 - 2015 IL App (2d) 140865 that he or she chooses.

2013“He filed his request for summons, and exhibited proof of payment for the probable cost of the record, within the 20-day period required by section 19(f)(1).” Id. at 324 .

2013In Jones, though the claimant’s compliance with the sequencing requirement was less than strict, there nevertheless was “no dispute that [he] initiated his appeal in the circuit court in a timely fashion.” Id. at 324 . ¶ 51 These proof-of-payment decisions, which stood firm regarding the timeliness requirement, provide support for the conclusion that under section 19(f)(1), a proceeding for judicial review of a Commission decision is commenced when the request for summons and the proof of payment of the probable cost of the record are file-stamped by the circuit clerk, rather than when they ar

2013It went on to conclude, however, that a timeliness challenge could not be successfully asserted in the case before it because, under facts of the case, the petition was timely.” Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d at 559 .

2012Knox College, 88 Ill. 2d at 416-17 ; Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 251 (2002) (we defer to the findings of a trial court unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence). ¶ 54 In this case, the court did not hear any evidence on the timeliness of the claim against the 2005 loan to USAF or make any findings in that regard.

2008Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d at 564 .