Illinois Supreme Court· 1/21/2005

People v. Ramirez

Citations

824 N.E.2d 232
214 Ill. 2d 176
291 Ill. Dec. 656
2005 Ill. LEXIS 8

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the construction of a statute is a question of law that must be reviewed de novo
noting that court was constrained to apply the plain language of the statute as written where the legislature could have included certain language in a statute but did not
interpreting section 115-4.1(a)’s requirement that the clerk notify an absent defendant of the trial date by certified mail
“[i]t is well established that, by employing the word ‘shall,’ the legislature evinces a clear intent to impose a mandatory obligation”
use of the word “shall” generally indicates legislature intended to impose mandatory obligation
compliance with the certified mailing requirement is one of the “necessary statutory safeguards” designed to protect the important constitutional rights that are lost when a person is tried in absentia

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.