People v. Estrada

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Johnson

    316 Ill. App. 3d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Engelbrecht, 225 Ill. App.3d at 557, relying in part on People v. Znaniecki, 181 Ill. App.3d 389, 392 (1989) (stating that an incomplete warning required rescission). In People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245 (2000), the defendant, Steven Estrada, was charged with driving under the influence of cannabis on January 29, 1999. He was subsequently notified of the six-month suspension of his driver's license.

  2. People v. Johnson

    197 Ill. 2d 478 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that rescission of summary suspension of driver's license was warranted if an inaccurate warning was given and "that misinformation directly affects the motorist's potential length of suspension"

    Some appellate panels have held that warnings which contain any misinformation are a sufficient basis to rescind suspension. Engelbrecht, 225 Ill. App.3d at 556; People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245, 248 (2000). Conversely, other panels of the appellate court have held that the inaccurate warning must "prejudice" or "materially affect" the motorist before rescission can be granted.

  3. People v. Martin

    2023 Ill. App. 4th 230519 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ΒΆ 16 Moreover, we note defendant supports his construction of sections 11-501.1(c) and 2-118.1 by citing three cases involving inaccurate warnings. See People v. Estrada, 313 Ill.App.3d 245, 729 N.E.2d 851 (2000); People v. Engelbrecht, 225 Ill.App.3d 550, 588 N.E.2d 452 (1992); People v. Znaniecki, 181 Ill.App.3d 389, 537 N.E.2d 16 (1989)). In Johnson, 197 Ill.2d at 485, 758 N.E.2d at 809-10, our supreme court declined to follow the analytical premise in those three cases, which had held "the purpose of the warnings is to enable the motorist to make an informed choice."

  4. The Village of Lincolnshire v. Follensbee

    740 N.E.2d 534 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)

    A trial court's decision to grant a petition to rescind a motorist's statutory summary suspension of her or his driving privileges will not be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245, 248 (2000). Section 11-501.