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.
48 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2025 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
River Village I, LLC v. Central Insurance Companiesgreen2 sentences2024The purpose of such a motion “ ‘is to bring to the trial court’s attention newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous application of existing law to the facts at hand.’ ” In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333, ¶ 55 (quoting River Village I, LLC v. Central Insurance Cos., 396 Ill. 2024The purpose of such a motion “ ‘is to bring to the trial court’s attention newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous application of existing law to the facts at hand.’ ” In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333, ¶ 55 (quoting River Village I, LLC v. Central Insurance Cos., 396 Ill. | 12 | 13 |
Gardner v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.green2 sentences2023The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court’s attention “(1) newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the first hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) error in the court’s previous application of existing law.” Gardner v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 213 Ill. 2016We expressed our disapproval of the plaintiff’s motion in that case, explaining as follows: “The intended purpose of a petition to reconsider is to bring to the court’s atten- tion (1) newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the first hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court’s previous application of existing law. [Citation.] Even if [this] affidavit were sufficient under Supreme Court Rule 191, the trial court would have been justified in disregarding the con- - 10 - tents of that affidavit solely because all of that material had been available prio | 6 | 11 |
Merchants Bank v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2019App. 3d 1, 4-5 (2007) (citing Merchants Bank v. Roberts, 292 Ill. 2019App. 3d 1 , 4-5, 315 Ill.Dec. 422 , 876 N.E.2d 734 (2007) (citing Merchants Bank v. Roberts , 292 Ill. | 5 | 6 |
In re Marriage of Heinrichgreen2 sentences2024The purpose of such a motion “ ‘is to bring to the trial court’s attention newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous application of existing law to the facts at hand.’ ” In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333, ¶ 55 (quoting River Village I, LLC v. Central Insurance Cos., 396 Ill. 2024The purpose of a motion to reconsider “is to bring to the trial court’s attention newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous application of existing law to the facts at hand.” In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333, ¶ 55 . | 2 | 3 |
People v. Terangreen2 sentences2019“The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court’s attention (1) newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court’s application of existing law.” People v. Teran, 376 Ill. 2019"The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court's attention (1) newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court's application of existing law." People v. Teran , 376 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Abbas Holding Igreen2 sentences2021The purpose of a section 2-1203 motion is to alert the trial court “to newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or error in the court’s application of previously existing law.” Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Abbas Holding I, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 111296, ¶ 16 . 2020Motion to Reconsider ¶ 110 Willow next contends that the trial court erred in denying its posttrial motion to reconsider the September 18, 2017, order following the bench trial. ¶ 111 A party may bring a motion to reconsider under section 2-1203 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2010) for the purpose of bringing “ ‘to the trial court's attention newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous application of existing law to the facts at hand.’ ” Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. - 50 - 1-18-1329 Abbas Holding I, Inc., 201 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Molstadgreen1 sentence2025Cf. People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128, 135 (1984) (finding that codefendants’ testimony could not have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence because although the defendants were acquainted with one another, “no amount of diligence could have forced the codefendants to violate their fifth amendment right to avoid self- incrimination *** if the codefendants did not choose to do so”). ¶ 73 Even if we were to consider their statements, they are unlikely to change the result at a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
Peng v. Nardigreen1 sentence2021See Xiao Ling Peng v. Nardi, 2017 IL App (1st) 170155, ¶ 30 , 163 N.E.3d 133 (purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring the court’s attention to (1) error in the court’s previous application of the law, (2) changes in the law, or (3) newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing). ¶ 27 In addition, Kane swore that while working under the written agreement he had initiated or accepted “numerous phone calls and in-person meetings, as well as indirect communications to make sure [that the governor’s office] was aware of the importance of incentives to [Opti | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Reichardtgreen1 sentence2021“When a movant seeks reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence, a party must show that the newly discovered evidence existed before the initial hearing but had not yet been discovered or was otherwise unobtainable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Reichardt, 406 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Delgatto v. Brandon Associates, Ltd.green2 sentences1991See Delgatto v. Brandon Associates, Ltd. (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 183, 195 , 545 N.E.2d 689 . 1991See Delgatto v. Brandon Associates, Ltd. (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 183, 195 , 545 N.E.2d 689 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties, Inc., 164 Ill. 2018Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties, Inc., 164 Ill. | 6 | 1991–2021 |
in re Marriage of Lasota
neutral
2 sentences2018In re Marriage of Lasota , 2014 IL App (1st) 132009 , ¶ 28, 384 Ill.Dec. 708 , 17 N.E.3d 690 . 2018In re Marriage of Lasota , 2014 IL App (1st) 132009 , ¶ 28, 384 Ill.Dec. 708 , 17 N.E.3d 690 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
John Alden Life Insurance v. Propp
green
2 sentences1997Civil proceedings already suffer from far too many delays, and the interests of finality and efficiency require that the trial courts not consider such late-tendered evidentiary material, no matter what the contents thereof may be.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Propp, 255 Ill. 1997Civil proceedings already suffer from far too many delays and the interests of finality and efficiency require that the trial courts not consider such late-tendered evidentiary material, no matter what the contents thereof may be.' " (Emphasis in original.) Propp , 255 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Whitehead v. Newcomb-Whitehead
green
1 sentence2025As conceded by Karen, her request was not made on May 8, 2024, when the parties presented argument on the petition to adjudicate rights of the parties and was instead made as part of her reconsideration request. ¶ 34 “A motion to reconsider draws a trial court’s attention to newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at the time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the previous 14 application of existing law to the facts of the case.” In re Marriage of Whitehead, 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 44 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Geisler v. Everest National Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2014Geisler v. Everest National Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 103834, ¶ 104 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hartzog v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2012The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court’s attention ‘(1) newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the first hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) error in the court’s previous application of existing law.’ [Citation.] A motion to reconsider ‘should not be allowed in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why it was not made available at the time of the original hearing.’ [Citation.]” Hartzog, 372 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Gierbolini
neutral
1 sentence1976App. 3d 75 , 327 N.E.2d 297 .) In the instant case, there has been no showing of exceptional circumstances and counsel’s offer of proof after the refusal to hear the second motion to suppress indicated no new evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.