ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/10-135 (2026)

Habeas corpus to testify

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/10-135) (from Ch. 110, par. 10-135)
    Sec. 10-135. Habeas corpus to testify. The several courts having authority to grant relief by habeas corpus, may enter orders, when necessary, to bring before them any prisoner to testify, or to be surrendered in discharge of pretrial release, or for trial upon any criminal charge lawfully pending in the same court or to testify in a criminal proceeding in another state as provided for by Section 2 of the "Uniform Act to secure the attendance of witnesses from within or without a state in criminal proceedings", approved July 23, 1959, as heretofore or hereafter amended; and the order may be directed to any county in the State, and there be served and returned by any officer to whom it is directed.
(Source: P.A. 101-652, eff. 1-1-23.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: In Re Marie M., 873 N.E.2d 393 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marie M., 873 N.E.2d 393 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “on October 31, 2006, for Marie to take the PSAE. On October 27, 2006, Bargar filed a motion to quash the writs, arguing the trial court exceeded it authority under the habeas-corpus -to-testify statute (735 ILCS 5/10-135 (West 2004)).”
Barner v. Fairburn, 2019 IL App (3d) 180742 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “735 ILCS 5/10-135 (West 2018). “The decision whether to grant a prisoner reprieve from his imprisonment and allow him to personally appear in a civil proceeding is within the trial court’s discretion.”
Doe v. Burgos, 638 N.E.2d 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “(735 ILCS 5/10-135 (West 1992); see In re Marriage of Allison (1984), 126 Ill.”
People v. Kastman, 2015 IL App (2d) 141245 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “Our task, however, is not to determine what is most convenient for the Director; it is to answer the trial court’s certified question consistent with the law. ¶ 22 It suffices to say that the trial court (here, the committing court) is in the best position to determine whether…”
People v. Freed (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 7× “t 7, 2001, the Department filed a motion to quash the trial court's July 2001 order, alleging that the court had erred by issuing the writ because it was not for one of the purposes provided in section 10- 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the proper procedure…”
In re Marie M. (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “on October 31, 2006, for Marie to take the PSAE. On October 27, 2006, Bargar filed a motion to quash the writs, arguing the trial court exceeded it authority under the habeas-corpus-to-testify statute (735 ILCS 5/10-135 (West 2004)).”
Mueller v. Carter, 2020 IL App (4th) 190531-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “Petitioner also maintains that the court’s ruling, which prevented him from appearing personally before the court and resulted in his participation only by telephone, put him at a “distinct disadvantage” and “caused him severe prejudice.”
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.