Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Hall

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 16, 2007No. 3-06-0234Published

1DissentJustice McDADE

The majority has held that Hall should not enjoy immunity from answering the State’s questions during his rescission proceedings, adopting the policy articulated in Village of Algonquin v. Tilden, 335 Ill. App. 3d 332, 780 N.E.2d 832 (2002), and that its holding obviates the need to address the trial court’s rescission order because additional proceedings are now warranted. For the following reasons, I disagree with the majority’s findings and respectfully dissent.

In Tilden, the court held that “defendant’s filing of her petition waived any right against self-incrimination that she might have…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Pillsbury Co. v. ConboySupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. People v. LindseyIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  4. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. United States of America v. (Under Seal)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  5. Galante v. STEEL CITY NAT'L BK. OF CHICAGOAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API