2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly
2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly
2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Criminal Code of 1961 As used in the Code’s provision concerning money<br />
laundering, the term "proceeds" means "profits" not "receipts". People v. Universal<br />
Public Transportation ...................................................................................................... 21<br />
Criminal Code of 1961 The refusal to produce a driver's license and proof of<br />
insurance upon demand of an officer does not, on its own, constitute obstruction of a<br />
peace officer under the Code. People v. Bohannon ........................................................ 22<br />
Criminal Code of 1961 Throwing contraband over a privacy fence while in view<br />
of the police does not qualify as obstructing justice under the Code. People v. Comage. 22<br />
Unified Code of Corrections The Code’s intrastate detainer notice-by-mail<br />
provisions do not currently contain safeguards requiring the State to actually receive<br />
the required notice of demand for a speedy trial. People v. Mullins ............................... 23<br />
Unified Code of Corrections The Code authorizes a trial court to order the taking,<br />
analysis, and indexing of a qualifying offender's DNA, and the payment of the analysis<br />
fee, only if that defendant is not currently registered in the DNA database. People v.<br />
Marshall ........................................................................................................................... 23<br />
Unified Code of Corretions For the purposes of calculating good conduct credit<br />
under the Code, the date the defendant is sentenced is counted as the first day of the<br />
defendant’s sentence and not as a day of presentence custody. People v. Williams ....... 24<br />
Unified Code of Corrections The date of conviction for purposes of the Code’s<br />
Class X felony enhancement provision means the date of entry of the sentencing order<br />
and not the date the defendant pled guilty to the offense. People v. Holmes .................. 24<br />
Unified Code of Corrections The Code permits the imposition of a consecutive<br />
term of imprisonment following a natural life sentence. People v. Petrenko ................. 25<br />
Unified Code of Corrections The imposition of an enhanced mandatory<br />
supervised release term under the Code must be predicated on a prior conviction and<br />
not on 2 acts arising from one incident. People v. Anderson .......................................... 26<br />
Unified Code of Corrections Petitions for the revocation of fines under the Code<br />
are free-standing, collateral actions that may be filed more than 30 days after the entry<br />
of judgment. People v. Mingo ......................................................................................... 26<br />
Code of Civil Procedure A judge has no duty to automatically refer a petition for<br />
substitution for cause unless specified threshold requirements for that petition are met.<br />
In re Estate of Wilson ....................................................................................................... 27<br />
Code of Civil Procedure When calculating damages under a provision of the Code<br />
that requires a holdover tenant to pay double the yearly value of the lands, the court<br />
must use the net rental value of the lands, rather than the gross rental value of the lands.<br />
Rexam Beverage Can Company v. Bolger ....................................................................... 28<br />
Sureties Act The protections afforded to sureties under the Act do not necessarily<br />
apply to guarantors. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. ...................... 28<br />
Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act A<br />
claim of an alleged sexual assault by a treating physician does not arise out of patient<br />
care for the purposes of the Act's 2-year statute of repose. Kaufmann v. Schroeder. ...... 29<br />
Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act The<br />
Bi-State Development Agency of the <strong>Illinois</strong>-Missouri Metropolitan District qualifies<br />
as a local public entity under the Act. Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the<br />
<strong>Illinois</strong>-Missouri Metropolitan District ............................................................................ 29<br />
4