In re Joseph M

25 Citing cases

  1. People v. Debra B. (In re Debra B.)

    2016 Ill. App. 5th 130573 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 13 times
    Applying manifest weight of the evidence review to findings that State proved by clear and convincing that respondent lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision under section 2-107.1(E) and that she was suffering and that her ability to function had deteriorated under section 2-107.1(B)

    It is therefore impossible for this court to grant her effective relief from that order. See In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1087, 339 Ill.Dec. 115, 925 N.E.2d 1236 (2010). This fact means that our decision in this matter is “essentially an advisory opinion.”

  2. In re K.

    2011 Ill. App. 3d 100545 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 27 The State must present expert testimony regarding the above factors to sustain its burden. In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1090, 339 Ill.Dec. 115, 925 N.E.2d 1236 (2010). Expert medical testimony is considered clear and convincing when the expert identifies direct observation of the respondent on several occasions as the basis for his or her diagnosis.

  3. In re Vanessa K

    954 N.E.2d 885 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)

    ¶ 27 The State must present expert testimony regarding the above factors to sustain its burden. In re Joseph M., 398 Ill. App. 3d 1086, 1090 (2010). Expert medical testimony is considered clear and convincing when the expert identifies direct observation of the respondent on several occasions as the basis for his or her diagnosis.

  4. In re Lance H

    402 Ill. App. 3d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    In LanceH., the State conceded that the trial court's failure to follow section 3–816(a) required reversal of the trial court's order.

    Second, we note that there have been at least four recent cases from Randolph County that this court has reversed for a failure to comply with the Code. See In re Joseph M., 398 Ill. App. 3d 1086 (2010); In re Donrell S., 395 Ill. App. 3d 599 (2009); In re Michael H., 392 Ill. App. 3d 965 (2009); In re Phillip E., 385 Ill. App. 3d 278 (2008). Thus, we believe there is a need for an authoritative determination for future guidance.

  5. People v. Veronica C. (In re Ameriah W.)

    2025 Ill. App. 5th 241166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025)

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001).

  6. People v. Deandria G. (In re Za. G.)

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 220793 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 19 times

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001). ¶ 32 A. Fitness

  7. People v. Jakob C. (In re H.C.)

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 220588 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K, 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001). ¶ 28 We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Jakob was an "unfit person."

  8. People v. Frank W. (In re A.D.)

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 220565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re JosephM., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001).

  9. People v. Jerry B. (In re M.B.)

    2022 Ill. App. 5th 220294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001). ¶ 81 We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Jerry was an "unfit person."

  10. People v. Angela N. (In re M.B.)

    2022 Ill. App. 5th 220295 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001).