In our last several posts, we’ve been addressing the jurisdictional origins of the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket – does the Court prefer final judgments, or does it often agree to review interlocutory decisions?
In this post, we turn to a slightly different subject. Do summary judgments often reach the Court, since they present cleaner,
We’ve been looking at the sources of appellate jurisdiction for the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket. Does the Court prefer to review final decisions with fully formed records? How often does the Court review interlocutory decisions?
Between 2000 and 2004, Rule 301 appeals comprised between sixty and seventy percent of the Court’s civil docket.
Between
In our last post, we began looking at the sources of appellate jurisdiction on the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket. Does the Court mostly review final decisions? If the Court frequently hears interlocutory appeals on its civil docket, does it show a preference for any particular kind of interlocutory appeal – constitutional cases or appeals
The most fundamental rule of appellate jurisdiction in Illinois is Supreme Court Rule 301, which makes “[e]very final judgment of a circuit court” appealable “as of right.” Rule 301 operates in cases which have passed through the appellate system in the usual way, first being decided by one of the five districts of the Appellate
The composition of the docket of any appellate court of discretionary jurisdiction is a matter of interest to both academic researchers and practicing appellate specialists.
A number of different studies in the academic literature argue that changes in appellate courts’ dockets reflect changes in the nature of American law.[1] For example, property matters and