Dooley v. McGillicudy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that legislature had not changed the Code in response to Sperling and thus applying the holding from Sperling
• noting that legislature had -10- No. 2--08--0605 not changed the Code in response to Sperling and thus applying the holding from Sperling
• awarding writ on January 19 while judicial review of the Board’s decision was pending in the circuit court; candidate’s name ordered to appear on March 16 primary ballot, with written opinion to follow
• “Under the circumstances of this case we conclude that the [writ of mandamus] sought by plaintiff was appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).