Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 207/70 (2026)

(Repealed)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 207/70)
    Sec. 70. (Repealed).
(Source: P.A. 91-227, eff. 1-1-00. Repealed by P.A. 97-1075, eff. 8-24-12.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 2000–2016 · leading case: People v. Botruff, 817 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. 2004).
People v. Botruff, 817 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 3× “Sections 55 and 65(b)(1) adequately protect a person’s liberty interest by explicitly providing for annual reexaminations, the right to have an attorney represent the committed at the probable cause hearing, and the right to petition for discharge at any time. 725 ILCS 207/55,…”
In Re Det. of Samuelson, 727 N.E.2d 228 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 1998). The case before us today is at a relatively early stage in this process.”
People v. Botruff, 771 N.E.2d 570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 2000). "[H]owever, if a person has previously filed a petition for discharge without the Secretary's approval and the court determined, either upon review of the petition or following a hearing, that the person's petition was frivolous or that the person…”
People v. Trainor, 752 N.E.2d 1055 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 1998). 3 Under both statutes the burden of proof during a recovery hearing remains on the State.”
In re Det. of Stanbridge, 2012 IL 112337 (Ill. 2012). “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 2008).5 If the person has not previously filed a petition for discharge without the Secretary’s approval, the court must set a probable cause hearing and, if appropriate, proceed in accordance with the same procedures governing unapproved petitions for…”
In Re Det. of Trevino, 740 N.E.2d 810 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 1998). The Commitment Act simply provides that the trial court may dismiss such a petition without hearing if the trial court had previously denied a release petition that had been filed by a respondent without DHS approval.”
In re Det. of Lieberman, 2011 IL App (1st) 90796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 725 ILCS 207/70 (West 2008). Section 65 expressly provides: “The committed person has a right to have an attorney represent him or her at the probable cause hearing, but the person is not entitled to be present at the probable cause hearing.”
In re Commitment of Wilcoxen, 2016 IL App (3d) 140359 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “22 24, 2012) (repealing 725 ILCS 207/70). Because a committed individual may petition for discharge after each statutory evaluation period, even by inaction, and he has the benefit of counsel during the subsequent proceedings, I do not think that the standard for this…”
In Re Det. of Stanbridge, 948 N.E.2d 1063 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “OPINION In April 2009, respondent, Kevin W Stanbridge, filed an amended petition for discharge from the custody and control of the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) pursuant to section 70 of the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS 207/70 (West 2008)). In…”
In Re Det. of Varner, 734 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “If, however, a committed person has previously filed a petition for discharge without the Secretary’s approval and the court determined, either upon review of the petition or following a hearing, that the petition was frivolous or that the committed person was still a sexually…”
In re Commitment of Simons, 2015 IL App (5th) 140566 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “725 ILCS 207/70 (West 2000). Thus, the circuit court did not err in finding the petition for discharge and motion for appointment of an expert untimely under the Act.”
People v. Botruff Corrected 9/28/04 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 3× “Sections 55 and 65(b)(1) adequately protect a person’s liberty interest by explicitly providing for annual reexaminations, the right to have an attorney represent the committed at the probable cause hearing, and the right to petition for discharge at any time. 725 ILCS 207/55,…”
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.