purely technical doctrine in Illinois

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994Indeed, in view of the fact that one satisfaction would satisfy both judgments, there is little to be said in favor of the doctrine of merger, reasonable as that doctrine may be in ordinary cases, by a second judgment obtained upon the first, even in the same state.’ ” (Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann (1912), 163 Cal. 632, 635 , 126 P. 483, 484 , quoting Story on Conflict of Laws § 599, note (a) (8th ed. 1883).) This reasoning is sound as the courts of one State do not have the power to divest the court of another State of its power to enforce its own judgment or to nullify the rendering State

1994Indeed, in view of the fact that one satisfaction would satisfy both judgments, there is little to be said in favor of the doctrine of merger, reasonable as that doctrine may be in ordinary cases, by a second judgment obtained upon the first, even in the same state.’ ” (Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann (1912), 163 Cal. 632, 635 , 126 P. 483, 484 , quoting Story on Conflict of Laws § 599, note (a) (8th ed. 1883).) This reasoning is sound as the courts of one State do not have the power to divest the court of another State of its power to enforce its own judgment or to nullify the rendering State

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1994(See Ballentine v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal. 2d 254 , 158 P.2d 14 ; Jacoby v. Jacoby (1979), 150 Ga. App. 725 , 258 S.E.2d 534 ; Armour Brothers Banking Co. v. Addington (1896), 1 Ind. T. 304 , 37 S.W. 100 ; Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court (1935), 291 Mass. 504 , 197 N.E. 487 ; Zirul v. Zirul (Mo. App. 1984), 671 S.W.2d 320 ; In re Williams (1913), 208 N.Y. 32 , 101 N.E. 853 .) The theory for this view was explained by the California Supreme Court in Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann: " 'It may be inconvenient that two judgments should subsist in the same state against the same person

1982(See also People v. Hoyer (1981), 100 Ill.

1982(See also People v. Hoyer (1981), 100 Ill.

1982App. 3d 691 , 318 N.E.2d 156 , for the rule that a purely technical error which does not prejudice a defendant will not be considered to be less than substantial compliance with Rule 402, and therefore will not warrant reversal of the conviction.

1982App.3d 691 , 318 N.E.2d 156 , for the rule that a purely technical error which does not prejudice a defendant will not be considered to be less than substantial compliance with Rule 402, and therefore will not warrant reversal of the conviction.

1972People v. Trenter, 3 Ill.App.3d 889 , 279 N.E.2d 130 ; People v. Reed, 3 Ill.App.3d 293 , 278 N.E.2d 524 .

1972People v. Trenter, 3 Ill.App.3d 889 , 279 N.E.2d 130 ; People v. Reed, 3 Ill.App.3d 293 , 278 N.E.2d 524 .

1972People v. Trenter, 3 Ill.App.3d 889 , 279 N.E.2d 130 ; People v. Reed, 3 Ill.App.3d 293 , 278 N.E.2d 524 .

1972People v. Trenter, 3 Ill.App.3d 889 , 279 N.E.2d 130 ; People v. Reed, 3 Ill.App.3d 293 , 278 N.E.2d 524 .

1912Church v. Jewett, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) 55 ; Masters v. Masters, 13 Ill.

1912Church v. Jewett, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) 55 ; Masters v. Masters, 13 Ill.

1899It simply attempts to substitute circuity of action for direct responsibility, and requires us to blind our eyes with the theoretical abstraction so as to shut out the obvious and undoubted truth. ¥e have of late refused to be always and utterly trammeled by the logic derived from corporate existence, when it only serves to distort or hide the truth, and I think we should not hesitate in this case to reject the purely technical defense attempted.” In Sondheimer et al. v. Graeser, 172 Ill. 293 , the .court did not hesitate to hold that Sondheimer & Co., who largely •controlled a corporation whi