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 1979–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Raitzik v. Board of Educ. of Chicagogreen2 sentences2015Although "cause" is not specifically defined by the Code, it has been defined as "that which law and public policy deem as some substantial shortcoming which renders a teacher's continued employment detrimental to discipline and effectiveness" (Raitzik v. -7- 2015 IL App (1st) 141481 Board of Education of City of Chicago, 356 Ill. 2015Although “cause” is not specifically defined by the Code, it has been defined as “that which law and public policy deem as some substantial shortcoming which renders a teacher’s continued employment detrimental to discipline and effectiveness” (Raitzik v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 356 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 . ¶ 17 We turn now to the defendant’s second contention of error, which is that the trial judge committed reversible error at sentencing because he “relied upon [the victim’s] death as a factor in aggravation, when that is an element of the offense of first degree murder.” In support of this proposition, the defendant points to the trial judge’s statement, during the sentencing hearing, that the defendant “threatened harm and caused harm by his actions.” The defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court but contends plain-error review is availabl 2019As explained above, when a defendant requests plain-error review of an alleged error, the reviewing court’s first step “is determining whether any error occurred.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Curry
green
1 sentence2022As the State points out, in People v. Curry, 2018 IL App (1st) 152616, ¶ 16 , our colleagues in the First District reiterated the well-established principle of law that de novo review applies only when the facts are not in dispute and the defendant’s guilt under the undisputed facts is a question of law. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
James v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2015Although "cause" is not specifically defined by the Code, it has been defined as "that which law and public policy deem as some substantial shortcoming which renders a teacher's continued employment detrimental to discipline and effectiveness" (Raitzik v. -7- 2015 IL App (1st) 141481 Board of Education of City of Chicago, 356 Ill. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Needy v. Sparks
green
1 sentence1979(Needy v. Sparks (1977), 51 Ill. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.