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 1989–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGawgreen1 sentence2026Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill. 2d 262, 278-79 (1998). ¶ 29 Here, the record shows that plaintiff consistently argued at the telephone hearing with the Department and on appeal to the Board that the “section” she worked for, The Salvation Army Harbor Light Center, was a charitable organization that performed community work. | 1 | 1 |
Beggs v. The Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186green1 sentence2024See Beggs, 2016 IL 120236 ¶ 50 . ¶ 21 Plaintiff contends that she was unaware of the 14-day “time limit” to file her claim for back benefits, and only learned of the issue when she participated in the telephone hearing before the referee. | 1 | 1 |
Lojek v. Illinois Department of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2021See Lojek, 2013 IL App (1st) 120679, ¶ 38 (record reflected no evidence that changes in employment were substantial where employee did not explain how her job duties changed). ¶ 24 In sum, Palacios presented no evidence of a substantial and unilateral change in employment, initiated by Kovach, that rendered her employment unsuitable. | 1 | 1 |
Hanna v. City of Chicagogreen1 sentence2020“Mootness occurs once the plaintiff has secured what he basically sought and a resolution of the issues could not have any practical effect on the existing controversy.” Hanna v. City of Chicago, 382 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois Commerce Commission
green
1 sentence2020We therefore affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal in appeal number 1-18-2651. ¶ 39 With regard to appeal number 1-19-0714, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s petition for administrative review as moot, considering that two days after plaintiff filed a petition for review, he was granted a telephone hearing. ¶ 40 “An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or when events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to render effectual relief.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129 , ¶ 10. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Angelo v. BD. OF REVIEW, DEPT. OF LABOR
green
1 sentence1990Although mailing of the notice may be some evidence that it was received a few days later by the individual to whom it was mailed (Angelo v. Board of Review, Department of Labor (1978), 58 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Haynes v. Washington
green
2 sentences1989Ed. 2d 513 , 83 S. Ct. 1336 .) Second, the defendant claims that his statement should have been suppressed because the police and the assistant State’s Attorney violated his statutory rights by repeatedly denying his requests to use the telephone in violation of section 103 — 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. 1989He maintains that his statements were involuntary because the police held him incommunicado at the police station for approximately nine hours, denied his requests to use the telephone, and refused to allow his family to see him. ( Haynes v. Washington (1963), 373 U.S. 503 , 10 L.Ed.2d 513 , 83 S.Ct. 1336 .) Second, the defendant claims that his statement should have been suppressed because the police and the assistant State's Attorney violated his statutory rights by repeatedly denying his requests to use the telephone in violation of section 103-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (I | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.