Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Tunget

287 Ill. App. 3d 533 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Tunget

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Trainor

    196 Ill. 2d 318 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that the State bears the burden of proof at a recovery proceeding under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, notwithstanding 30 years of precedent placing the burden on the defendant

    In resolving issues concerning applications for recovery, however, courts, including this court, have used the phrase "petition for recovery" when discussing an "application" for recovery. See, e.g., People v. Cooper, 132 Ill.2d 347 (1989); Shiro, 52 Ill.2d at 282; People v. Sizemore, 311 Ill. App.3d 917 (2000); People v. Tunget, 287 Ill. App.3d 533 (1997). People v. Hannan, 184 Ill. App.3d 937 (1989); People v. Parrott, 108 Ill. App.3d 222 (1982).

  2. People v. Trainor

    312 Ill. App. 3d 860 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    We have previously acknowledged that the Act imposes a significant burden on this State's limited resources. People v. Tunget, 287 Ill. App.3d 533, 678 N.E.2d 1246 (1997); People v. Burk, 289 Ill. App.3d 270, 682 N.E.2d 352 (1997). However, we must conclude that the Act was violated when the trial court dismissed the defendant's petition by means of summary judgment.