ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 36
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 36/108 (2026)

Notice To Persons Outside State

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 36/108)
    Sec. 108. Notice To Persons Outside State.
    (a) Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this State may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this State for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice must be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective.
    (b) Proof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by the law of this State or by the law of the state in which the service is made.
    (c) Notice is not required for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2007–2008 · leading case: In Re Sophia GL, 890 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Sophia GL, 890 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 2× “n establishes that: (1) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under Article 2; (2) the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2; or (3) the person contesting…”
Cochran v. Lindeman, 890 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 2× “n establishes that: (1) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under Article 2; (2) the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2; or (3) the person contesting…”
In Re Sophia GL, 867 N.E.2d 1128 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “ng court did not have jurisdiction under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; (2) the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; or (3) the person contesting registration…”
Cochran v. Lindeman, 371 Ill. App. 3d 833 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “ng court did not have jurisdiction under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; (2) the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; or (3) the person contesting registration…”
In re Sophia G.L. (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “did not have jurisdiction under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; - 9 - (2) the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having juris- diction to do so under [a]rticle 2 [of the Act]; or (3) the person contesting registration…”
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.