ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 22

740 ILCS 22/101

Short title

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 22/101)
    Sec. 101. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Civil No Contact Order Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-236, eff. 1-1-04.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: People v. Deleon
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Deleon (2020) ill “(West 2018)); Civil No Contact Order Act (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2018)); 725 ILCS 5/112A-11.”
J.M. v. Breseno (2011) illappct “appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for an order of protection under the Civil No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2008)) after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by respondent.”
JM v. Briseno (2011) illappct “appeals the trial court's denial of her petition for an order of protection under the Civil No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2008)) after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by respondent.”
Kellerman v. Heckman (2022) illappct “¶ 13 The purpose of the Civil No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2020)) is to provide a civil remedy to protect victims of sexual assault from future interactions with the offender.”
McBride v. Peters (2020) illappct “(West 2018)) rather than the standard expressed in the Civil No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2018)). We reverse and remand with instructions.”
People v. Keenan (2024) illappct “¶ 50 Of course, these criminal remedies are available to the victim only if the State has initiated a criminal prosecution, a decision that rests with the state’s attorney and depends on many factors beyond the victim’s control.”
Bush v. Pedigo (2021) illappct “Therefore, the circuit court concluded that the Domestic Violence Act did not apply 1 and treated Bush’s pro se petition as a proceeding under the Civil No Contact Order Act (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2020)), rather than the Domestic Violence Act.”
Colin v. Montgomery (2025) illappct “(We note that, in arguing that she did not receive prior service, respondent erroneously cited provisions of the Civil No Contact Order Act (see 740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2022)), which is not at issue here.”
Louzensky v. Clinton (2026) illappct “¶2 Petitioner, Lynley Louzensky, petitioned for an order under the Civil No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 22/101 et seq. (West 2024)) against respondent, Michael Clinton.”
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.