ILCS » Chapter 710 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

710 ILCS 5/5 (2026)

Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(710 ILCS 5/5) (from Ch. 10, par. 105)
    Sec. 5. Hearing.
    Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:
    (a) The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than 5 days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and, on request of a party and for good cause, or upon their own motion may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
    (b) The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing.
    (c) The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators but a majority may determine any question and render a final award. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy, unless otherwise provided in the agreement.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 3844.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Advocate Fin. Grp. v. Poulos, 2014 IL App (2d) 130670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Advocate Fin. Grp. v. Poulos, 2014 IL App (2d) 130670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 710 ILCS 5/5(a) (West 2010). Accordingly, contrary to defendants’ assertion, the arbitrator himself or herself is not required to personally effectuate service but, rather, he or she must “cause” service to be made upon the parties.”
Gingiss Int'l, Inc. v. Norman E. Bormet & Phyllis M. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995). “The Bormets had no right under the franchise agreement to receive actual notice of the arbitration.”
Bushell v. Caterpillar, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 1286 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “710 ILCS 5/5 (West 1994). Arbitrators are empowered to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witness, and administer oaths.”
Cleeland v. Gilbert, 774 N.E.2d 821 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “See 710 ILCS 5/5 (West 2000). Requiring Cleeland to file a rule to show cause before the court may rule under the authority provided it by the Act is superfluous and uneconomical.”
Harker's Distrib., Inc. v. Reinhart Foodservice, L.L.C., 597 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Iowa 2009). “See 710 ILCS 5/5 (“Unless otherwise provided by the agreement,” certain hearing requirements are established by the statute).”
Bushell v. Caterpillar, Inc., 291 Ill. App. 3d 559 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “710 ILCS 5/5 (West 1994). Arbitrators are empowered to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witness and administer oaths.”
Tee & Gee Underwriting Managers, Lp v. Am. Millennium Ins. Co. (l-0817-21, Somerset Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “a neutral or corruption in any one of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material…”
Cleeland v. Gilbert, 774 N.E.2d 821 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “See 710 ILCS 5/5 (West 2000). Requiring Cleeland to file a rule to show cause before the court may rule under the authority provided it by the Act is superfluous and uneconomical.”
Berger v. Schiff Hardin, LLP, 2020 IL App (1st) 192329-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 710 ILCS 5/5(b)(West 2016). ¶ 23 Section 12(a)(4) states: “Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where *** [t]he arbitrators *** refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of…”
CW Pro Design, LLC v. Bratt Capital Partners, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 231690-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “In addition, the respondents asserted that notice was deficient since section 5 of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/5(a) (West 2022)) requires either personal service or service by registered mail and neither method was used.”
United Auto. Ins. v. Wilson, 942 N.E.2d 717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “a neutral or corruption in any one of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material…”
— 710 ILCS 5/5(a) — 3 cases
Advocate Fin. Grp. v. Poulos, 2014 IL App (2d) 130670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 710 ILCS 5/5(a) (West 2010). Accordingly, contrary to defendants’ assertion, the arbitrator himself or herself is not required to personally effectuate service but, rather, he or she must “cause” service to be made upon the parties.”
Gingiss Int'l, Inc. v. Norman E. Bormet & Phyllis M. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995). “The Bormets had no right under the franchise agreement to receive actual notice of the arbitration.”
CW Pro Design, LLC v. Bratt Capital Partners, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 231690-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “In addition, the respondents asserted that notice was deficient since section 5 of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/5(a) (West 2022)) requires either personal service or service by registered mail and neither method was used.”
— 710 ILCS 5/5(b) — 1 case
Berger v. Schiff Hardin, LLP, 2020 IL App (1st) 192329-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 710 ILCS 5/5(b)(West 2016). ¶ 23 Section 12(a)(4) states: “Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where *** [t]he arbitrators *** refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.