proceedings rule in Illinois

2011Sims, 192 Ill.2d at 621 , 249 Ill.Dec. 610 , 736 N.E.2d 1048 . ¶ 24 The State contends that if any error occurred, it was injected into the proceedings by defense counsel.

2011Sims, 192 Ill.2d at 621 , 249 Ill.Dec. 610 , 736 N.E.2d 1048 . ¶ 24 The State contends that if any error occurred, it was injected into the proceedings by defense counsel.

2003Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n , 203 Ill.

2003Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 203 Ill.

1999Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause to allow Rice to initiate new proceedings in accordance with Evans if he so desired. 291 Ill.

1999Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause to allow Rice to initiate new proceedings in accordance with Evans if he so desired. 291 Ill.App.3d at 12 , 225 Ill.Dec. 471 , 683 N.E.2d 974 .

1991App. 3d 344 , 378 N.E.2d 538 , in which no record of the proceedings from the hearing leading to the removal of the child from the parents was presented to the trial court at the termination hearing.

1991The respondent's argument and the State's response are consistent with In re Austin (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 344 , 19 Ill.Dec. 37 , 378 N.E.2d 538 , in which no record of the proceedings from the hearing leading to the removal of the child from the parents was presented to the trial court at the termination hearing.

2026Since the allegedly inconsistent positions were not taken in separate proceedings, judicial estoppel “does not apply” and the trial court did not err in failing to apply the doctrine. ¶ 40 Moreover, even if defendant was not required to show that the representations were part of separate proceedings, his claim also fails because the State’s positions were not inconsistent, and any possible inconsistency by the State is attributable to “mistake or inadvertence” and not an “intent to deceive or mislead.” Duniver, 2023 IL 128141, ¶ 23 . ¶ 41 The record in this case provides that at the January 19

2024The State relies on People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230504 to argue that the court found the ground for relief on the preprinted Rule 604(d) form was irrelevant to the defendant’s appeal of revocation of pretrial release.

2022In general, “[t]o determine whether the [circuit] court made the error which appellant is claiming, a court of review must have before it the record of the proceedings where the error was allegedly made.” King v. Find-A-Way Shipping, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, ¶ 31 .

2022Nature of the Charges Against Defendant ¶ 52 Defendant first alleged that, due to the head injury he suffered as a child, he has difficulty understanding complex situations and, therefore, did not understand the nature of the charges against him when he pleaded guilty. ¶ 53 Following defendant’s testimony, the trial court determined, although it believed defendant suffered a head injury as a child, there was no basis to conclude the injury affected defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings at the hearing on the guilty plea. “[W]e must give great deference to the court’s factual finding

2022In entering summary judgment, the circuit court relied on Goldsmith and concluded that relief under section 2-1401 of the Code was foreclosed because petitioner waived formal discovery in the original proceedings and such waiver demonstrated a lack of due - 10 - 2022 IL App (2d) 200160 diligence as a matter of law.

2020Id. ¶ 31 To determine whether the trial court made the error which appellant is claiming, a court of review must have before it the record of the proceedings where the error was allegedly made.

2007App.3d 892, 895-97 , 245 Ill.Dec. 370 , 728 N.E.2d 101 (2000)) would not have been sufficient to overcome the prejudice injected into the proceedings by defense counsel.

2007App.3d 892, 895-97 , 245 Ill.Dec. 370 , 728 N.E.2d 101 (2000)) would not have been sufficient to overcome the prejudice injected into the proceedings by defense counsel.

1996Defendant equates his case to the case of People v. Burson, 11 Ill. 2d 360 (1957), in that it established a standard for determining questions of a defendant’s competence and ability to assist in the preparation of his defense for trial.

1996After holding that the judge's inability to hear the closing argument required reversal as a matter of law, the Thompson court remarked in passing that "[h]ad the judge stepped out of the court-room into his private room for a short time, where he could still hear the argument and where he would have been in a position to pass upon any question which might properly arise in the argument, we are not prepared to say that an error would have occurred." Thompson , 144 Ill. at 381-82 , 32 N.E. 968 . *1044 The quoted dictum from Thompson may be reasonably interpreted as excusing a judge's brief abse

1996After holding that the judge's inability to hear the closing argument required reversal as a matter of law, the Thompson court remarked in passing that "[h]ad the judge stepped out of the court-room into his private room for a short time, where he could still hear the argument and where he would have been in a position to pass upon any question which might properly arise in the argument, we are not prepared to say that an error would have occurred." Thompson , 144 Ill. at 381-82 , 32 N.E. 968 . *1044 The quoted dictum from Thompson may be reasonably interpreted as excusing a judge's brief abse

1994Relying on People v. Robertson (4th Dist. 1989), 181 Ill.

1992App. 3d 637, 639 , 348 N.E.2d 500, 502 ), and participating as a witness in the proceedings is a waiver of the jurisdiction issues (Greene v. Board of Election Commissioners (1983), 112 Ill.

1992App. 3d 637, 639 , 348 N.E.2d 500, 502 ), and participating as a witness in the proceedings is a waiver of the jurisdiction issues (Greene v. Board of Election Commissioners (1983), 112 Ill.

1992App. 3d 862, 867-68 , 445 N.E.2d 1337, 1341-42 ).

1991The respondent's argument and the State's response are consistent with In re Austin (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 344 , 19 Ill.Dec. 37 , 378 N.E.2d 538 , in which no record of the proceedings from the hearing leading to the removal of the child from the parents was presented to the trial court at the termination hearing.

1990A stipulated report of the proceedings at the hearing on the motion to reconsider states that plaintiffs did not tender any additional evidence nor did they indicate what additional evidence they could produce if leave were granted. • 5, 6 Affidavits may not be added by either party as a matter of right after a hearing and decision on a motion for summary judgment, but rather the allowance of affidavits presented for the first time in connection with a motion to vacate is within the discretion of the trial court. ( Schierer v. Ameritex Division, United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. (1980), 8

1990App.3d 90 , 400 N.E.2d 1072 .) According to the record in the case before us, extensive discovery had been pursued in this case, including written interrogatories and depositions.

1988Sawant & Co. v. Allied Programs Corp. (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 304, 309 .) Further, the absence of transcripts for many of the proceedings does not bar our review since the issues we address are solely questions of law.

1988People v. Scruggs (1987), 161 Ill.

1988(Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v. Wilson (1980), 86 Ill.

1987(Hoffer v. Morrow (7th Cir. 1986), 797 F.2d 348, 351 .) Therefore, to invoke double jeopardy defendant must somehow find an acquittal in these convictions.