ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 110
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 110/20 (2026)

Motion procedure and standards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 110/20)
    Sec. 20. Motion procedure and standards.
    (a) On the filing of any motion as described in Section 15, a hearing and decision on the motion must occur within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent. An appellate court shall expedite any appeal or other writ, whether interlocutory or not, from a trial court order denying that motion or from a trial court's failure to rule on that motion within 90 days after that trial court order or failure to rule.
    (b) Discovery shall be suspended pending a decision on the motion. However, discovery may be taken, upon leave of court for good cause shown, on the issue of whether the movants acts are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
    (c) The court shall grant the motion and dismiss the judicial claim unless the court finds that the responding party has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Wright Dev. Grp., LLC v. Walsh, 939 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright Dev. Grp., LLC v. Walsh, 939 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2010). · cites it 25× “The Act seeks to extinguish SLAPPs and protect citizen participation by: (1) immunizing citizens from civil actions based on acts made in furtherance of a citizen's free speech rights or right to petition government (735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008)); (2) establishing an expedited…”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012). · cites it 5× “" 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). Discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 942 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “See 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 619 admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs claims.”
Hytel Grp., Inc. v. Butler, 938 N.E.2d 542 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). The question thus becomes what that phrase — “the acts of the moving party” — means.”
Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although the Act purported to mandate an expedited interlocutory appeal from an order denying such a motion (see 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2010)), this provision raised separation-of-powers issues.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (Ill. 2012). “See 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008) (“On the filing of any motion as described in Section 15, a hearing and decision on the motion must occur within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent.”
Kainrath v. Grider, 2018 IL App (1st) 172270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “This argument is not jurisdictional; it relates only to the proper scope of what may be considered when a court decides whether a defendant has met its initial burden under the Act, an issue we discuss in more detail below. ¶ 17 Our jurisdiction over this appeal is…”
Mund v. Brown, 913 N.E.2d 1225 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “II, §1) because section 20(a) of the Act (735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West Supp. 2007)) grants a right to appeal from an interlocutory order, contrary to Illinois Supreme Court rules.”
August v. Hanlon, 2012 IL App (2d) 111252 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2010). Although discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion, “discovery may be taken, upon leave of court for good cause shown, on the issue of whether the movants acts are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized…”
Hammons v. Soc'y of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals, 2012 IL App (1st) 102644 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). If the case is dismissed, the defendants may recoup attorney fees.”
Helping Others Maintain Env't Standards v. Bos, 941 N.E.2d 347 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). These procedural mechanisms and the evidentiary standard clearly pertain to the trial court rather than the appellate court.”
Stein v. Krislov, 939 N.E.2d 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The trial court further held that the Act, which was enacted on August 28, 2007, could not provide immunity because it was not created until after plaintiffs June 13, 2005, letter and the filing of plaintiffs lawsuit on May 10, 2006, and the Act did not have retroactive…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— 735 ILCS 110/20(a) — 18 cases
Wright Dev. Grp., LLC v. Walsh, 939 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2010). “The Act seeks to extinguish SLAPPs and protect citizen participation by: (1) immunizing citizens from civil actions based on acts made in furtherance of a citizen's free speech rights or right to petition government (735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008)); (2) establishing an expedited…”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012). “" 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). Discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (Ill. 2012). “See 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008) (“On the filing of any motion as described in Section 15, a hearing and decision on the motion must occur within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent.”
Kainrath v. Grider, 2018 IL App (1st) 172270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “This argument is not jurisdictional; it relates only to the proper scope of what may be considered when a court decides whether a defendant has met its initial burden under the Act, an issue we discuss in more detail below. ¶ 17 Our jurisdiction over this appeal is…”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 942 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 619 admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs claims.”
— 735 ILCS 110/20(b) — 7 cases
Wright Dev. Grp., LLC v. Walsh, 939 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2010). “The Act seeks to extinguish SLAPPs and protect citizen participation by: (1) immunizing citizens from civil actions based on acts made in furtherance of a citizen's free speech rights or right to petition government (735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008)); (2) establishing an expedited…”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012). “" 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). Discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion.”
Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Although the Act purported to mandate an expedited interlocutory appeal from an order denying such a motion (see 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2010)), this provision raised separation-of-powers issues.”
Hammons v. Soc'y of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals, 2012 IL App (1st) 102644 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). If the case is dismissed, the defendants may recoup attorney fees.”
August v. Hanlon, 2012 IL App (2d) 111252 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “” 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2010). Although discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion, “discovery may be taken, upon leave of court for good cause shown, on the issue of whether the movants acts are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized…”
— 735 ILCS 110/20(c) — 20 cases
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012). “" 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (West 2008). Discovery is suspended pending a decision on the motion.”
Hytel Grp., Inc. v. Butler, 938 N.E.2d 542 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “” 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). The question thus becomes what that phrase — “the acts of the moving party” — means.”
Johannesen v. Eddins, 2011 IL App (2d) 110108 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
Wright Dev. Grp., LLC v. Walsh, 939 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2010). “The Act seeks to extinguish SLAPPs and protect citizen participation by: (1) immunizing citizens from civil actions based on acts made in furtherance of a citizen's free speech rights or right to petition government (735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008)); (2) establishing an expedited…”
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 942 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 619 admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs claims.”
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.