People v. Elliott

14 Citing cases

  1. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell

    2014 IL 116311 (Ill. 2014)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that an appellant's failure to argue a point in the opening brief results in forfeiture

    ¶ 33 When construing a statute, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23. The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning.

  2. People v. Caraballo

    2019 Ill. App. 171993 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    However, where the issue on appeal is whether the evidence was admitted on an erroneous legal basis, we review the question of admissibility de novo . People v. Larsen , 323 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1026, 257 Ill.Dec. 183, 753 N.E.2d 378 (2001). We also review de novo the construction of statutes ( People v. Elliott , 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 ), and the Illinois Administrative Code ( People v. Montalvo , 2016 IL App (2d) 140905, ¶ 18, 407 Ill.Dec. 706, 64 N.E.3d 84 ). When construing a statute or administrative code provision, our "primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent, keeping in mind that the best and most reliable indicator of that intent is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning."

  3. People v. Tolbert

    2016 IL 117846 (Ill. 2016)   Cited 19 times
    In Tolbert, the court found the language "not apply to or affect" demonstrated a "clear statement from the General Assembly indicating its intent to withdraw or exempt" invitees from the reach of section 24-1.6(a)(1).

    ¶ 12 Whether the invitee requirement of section 24–1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I) of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute is an element of the offense is a question of statutory interpretation. Our review, therefore, is de novo.People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23.¶ 13 Section 24–1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I) of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute provides:

  4. People v. Almond

    2015 IL 113817 (Ill. 2015)   Cited 216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the defendant's AHC and UUW convictions did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule because his AHC conviction was premised on his possession of a firearm whereas his UUW conviction was based on his possession of a firearm ammunition, explaining: "[T]he act of possession of a firearm is materially different from the act of possession of firearm ammunition, even if both items are possessed simultaneously"

    We now address that issue. ¶ 34 We review de novo the question of whether the statute authorizes separate convictions for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition because it presents a question of statutory interpretation. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. Our primary goal when construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent, best indicated by giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning.

  5. People v. Quigley

    2018 Ill. App. 172560 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    This section also authorizes the Illinois Secretary of State "to summarily suspend the driver's license of any motorist arrested for [driving under the influence] who refuses to submit to chemical testing, tests above the legal alcohol concentration limit, or tests positive for an intoxicating substance." People v. Elliott , 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 16, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 (citing 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1(d) (West 2002) ). The suspension has the purpose of promptly removing impaired drivers from the roadways and protects the public.

  6. People v. Brown

    2015 Ill. App. 122581 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The State responds that defendant's separate and individual possession of each firearm without a valid FOID card constitutes separate and individual offenses, and therefore, the three convictions should be affirmed. ¶ 27 Our primary goal when construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent, best indicated by giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. A reviewing court may also consider the reason for the law and the problems intended to be remedied. People v. Perez, 2014 IL 115927, ¶ 9.

  7. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n

    2014 Ill. App. 132011 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 31 times
    Stating that a statute is ambiguous where its meaning cannot be interpreted from the statute's plain language

    The existence of different or alternative dictionary definitions of a word, each of which would make sense in a statute, itself indicates that the term is ambiguous and the statute is open to interpretation. Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd., 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 39, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128 ; accord Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill.2d 1, 11, 335 Ill.Dec. 581, 919 N.E.2d 300 (2009) ; see also People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 13, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 (noting that the various dictionary definitions “[i]n short, rather than resolv [ing] the issue at hand, * * * simply underscore[d] the problem”). In the instant case, the dictionary definitions are unhelpful to our analysis and, given the multiple definitions, lend support to our determination that the statute is ambiguous.

  8. People v. Larue

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 120595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that the medical costs assessment is a fine

    In construing the statutes, our “primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent, keeping in mind that the best and most reliable indicator of that intent is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23. Our review is de novo.

  9. Gurba v. Cmty. High Sch. Dist. No. 155

    2015 IL 118332 (Ill. 2015)   Cited 42 times

    The issues in this case involve statutory analysis and interpretation, presenting questions of law which are subject to de novo review. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. In construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature's intent.

  10. People v. Perez

    2014 IL 115927 (Ill. 2014)   Cited 65 times
    Affirming appellate court's reversal of first-stage dismissal where trial court entered dismissal order on ninety-first day

    Because the construction of a statute is a question of law, our review is de novo. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. ¶ 10 Neither the appellate court majority nor the dissent analyzed the issue correctly. Although it reached the correct result, the appellate court majority relied on the public expression doctrine, which, as we will see, could lead one to an erroneous conclusion about what the statute requires.