ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 5/16-4 (2026)

(Repealed)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/16-4)
    Sec. 16-4. (Repealed).
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983. Repealed by P.A. 97-597, eff. 1-1-12.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2011 · leading case: People v. Day, 2011 IL App (2d) 91358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Day, 2011 IL App (2d) 91358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “720 ILCS 5/16-4(a) (West 2004). However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant’s property interest should be…”
People v. Day, 958 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant's property interest should be entirely disregarded in calculating…”
— 720 ILCS 5/16-4(a) — 2 cases
People v. Day, 2011 IL App (2d) 91358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “720 ILCS 5/16-4(a) (West 2004). However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant’s property interest should be…”
People v. Day, 958 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant's property interest should be entirely disregarded in calculating…”
— 720 ILCS 5/16-4(b) — 2 cases
People v. Day, 2011 IL App (2d) 91358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “720 ILCS 5/16-4(a) (West 2004). However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant’s property interest should be…”
People v. Day, 958 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “However, she argues that it does not follow that, where the property is shared by the defendant and the complainant, the property should be treated as belonging entirely to the complainant or that the defendant's property interest should be entirely disregarded in calculating…”
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.