- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
People v. Hible
NO. 4-12-0171 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)3 Citing cases
People v. Hible
2016 Ill. App. 4th 131096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) Cited 27 timesHolding that a court systems assessment is a fine
The decision was appealed as premature, and the appellate court remanded with directions for further proceedings. People v. Hible, No. 4–12–0171, 2013 WL 3487170 (July 9, 2013) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ). In August 2008, defendant filed an addendum to his pro se petition.
People v. Hible
2016 Ill. App. 4th 131096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)The decision was appealed as premature, and the appellate court remanded with directions for further proceedings. People v. Hible, No. 4-12-0171 (July 9, 2013) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In August 2008, defendant filed an addendum to his pro se petition.
People v. Alexander
2014 Ill. App. 4th 130132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) Cited 35 timesIn Alexander, the defendant mailed his section 2-1401 petition through prison mail and the circuit clerk filed the defendant's petition one week later.
This precise argument has been made repeatedly over the last few years by other defendants who similarly complained about trial courts' sua sponte dismissals after the 30–day period has expired under circumstances where they have failed to properly serve the State under Rule 105. A partial list of such cases follows: Carter, 2014 IL App (1st) 122613, 380 Ill.Dec. 271, 8 N.E.3d 441; People v. Ocon, 2014 IL App (1st) 120912, 379 Ill.Dec. 616, 7 N.E.3d 42; People v. Matthews, 2014 IL App (1st) 121913–U, 2014 WL 3511021; People v. Hible, 2013 IL App (4th) 120171–U, 2013 WL 3487170 ; People v. Miller , 2012 IL App (5th) 110201, 367 Ill.Dec. 203, 981 N.E.2d 528; People v. Marcrum, 2013 IL App (4th) 120154–U, 2013 WL 3491054; Oliver v. Pfister, 2013 IL App (4th) 120885–U, 2013 WL 3015508; Rynders v. Dawson, 2012 IL App (4th) 120830–U, 2013 WL 1802867 ; Nitz, 2012 IL App (2d) 091165, 361 Ill.Dec. 531, 971 N.E.2d 633; People v. Nash, 2013 IL App (1st) 112795–U, 2013 WL 860040; Kuhn, 2014 IL App (3d) 130092, 384 Ill.Dec. 479, 16 N.E.3d 872; and People v. Prado, 2012 IL App (2d) 110767, 365 Ill.Dec. 960, 979 N.E.2d 564. ¶ 62 The above list represents an astonishing and embarrassing squandering of scarce judicial resources.