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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ollins v. Karlgreen1 sentence2025See Hastings v. State, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶¶ 8-10, 18 (concluding the plaintiff was afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Court of Claims where she filed a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment); see also Ollins, 2022 IL App (1st) 220150, ¶ 31 (stating procedural due process requirements were met where the plaintiffs had notice of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and “were given the opportunity to brief their response, including their waiver and estoppel arguments”). | 1 | 1 |
Hastings v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Hastings v. State, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶¶ 8-10, 18 (concluding the plaintiff was afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Court of Claims where she filed a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment); see also Ollins, 2022 IL App (1st) 220150, ¶ 31 (stating procedural due process requirements were met where the plaintiffs had notice of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and “were given the opportunity to brief their response, including their waiver and estoppel arguments”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fillmore v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2024In Fillmore v. Taylor, our supreme court held that IDOC regulations covering disciplinary procedures and grievance processes did not create judicially enforceable rights for the plaintiff inmate that would allow him to seek a writ of mandamus compelling IDOC officials to comply with those regulations. 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 70 . ¶ 32 The plaintiff in Fillmore listed alleged violations of various IDOC regulations and Code sections—including regulations from Part 504 of the Illinois Administrative Code and section 3- 8-8 of the Unified Code of Corrections, specifically—in his claims against IDOC defe | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Donelson v. Hinton
green
1 sentence2020The Donelson court found (1) “competing evidence” as to when the plaintiff knew of his classification as a sexual predator and (2) “unresolved questions about IDOC’s claim of prejudice.” Donelson, 2018 IL App (3d) 170426, ¶¶ 12-13 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Lykes
green
2 sentences2001The sentence in Lykes from which the defendant gleans this proposition, however, states the following: “The issue before us, then, is whether the defendant was committed to the IDOC for violation of parole while the instant complaint was pending, or whether he was actually in custody for the instant offense although physically present in an IDOC facility.” Lykes, 124 Ill. 2001App. 3d at 606 , 464 N.E.2d at 851 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Lego
green
1 sentence1993IDOC argued that our decision in People v. Lego (1991), 212 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.