ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 21
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 21/120 (2026)

Modification; reopening of orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 21/120)
    Sec. 120. Modification; reopening of orders.
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, upon motion by the petitioner, the court may modify an emergency or plenary stalking no contact order by altering the remedy, subject to Section 80.
    (b) After 30 days following entry of a plenary stalking no contact order, a court may modify that order only when a change in the applicable law or facts since that plenary order was entered warrants a modification of its terms.
    (c) Upon 2 days' notice to the petitioner, or such shorter notice as the court may prescribe, a respondent subject to an emergency stalking no contact order issued under this Act may appear and petition the court to rehear the original or amended petition. Any petition to rehear shall be verified and shall allege the following:
        (1) that the respondent did not receive prior notice
    
of the initial hearing in which the emergency order was entered under Sections 65 and 95; and
        (2) that the respondent had a meritorious defense to
    
the order or any of its remedies or that the order or any of its remedies was not authorized by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 96-246, eff. 1-1-10.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case: Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶5 On January 31, 2013, White filed a petition for rehearing under section 120(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 21/120(c) (West 2012)). In his petition, White asserted that he did not receive notice of the emergency hearing and that he was thereby prejudiced because he had meritorious…”
Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶5 On January 31, 2013, White filed a petition for rehearing under section 120(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 21/120(c) (West 2012)). In his petition, White asserted that he did not 2 receive notice of the emergency hearing and that he was thereby prejudiced because he had meritorious…”
Bouvel v. Duggan, 2022 IL App (1st) 221320-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “740 ILCS 21/120(c). So even if the motion had been noticed for August 9 when it was filed on August 8, the notice would have been insufficient.”
— 740 ILCS 21/120(c) — 3 cases
Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶5 On January 31, 2013, White filed a petition for rehearing under section 120(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 21/120(c) (West 2012)). In his petition, White asserted that he did not receive notice of the emergency hearing and that he was thereby prejudiced because he had meritorious…”
Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶5 On January 31, 2013, White filed a petition for rehearing under section 120(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 21/120(c) (West 2012)). In his petition, White asserted that he did not 2 receive notice of the emergency hearing and that he was thereby prejudiced because he had meritorious…”
Bouvel v. Duggan, 2022 IL App (1st) 221320-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “740 ILCS 21/120(c). So even if the motion had been noticed for August 9 when it was filed on August 8, the notice would have been insufficient.”
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.