Zaabel v. Konetski

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to consider forfeited issue where “the interest of justice does not require that we search for arguments that [the appellant] himself has made no attempt whatsoever to provide”
• noting in dicta, and without deciding the issue, that persuasive authority supported the conclusion that the Illinois court no longer retained jurisdiction to modify a prior support order, under a statute identical to UIFSA (1996
• “We hold that section 205(a) of the Act does not apply to the circuit court’s jurisdiction to enforce its support order.”
• comments to section of the Model Act were “very persuasive evidence” of the Illinois General Assembly’s intent in enacting the corresponding section of the Family Support Act, because the legislature had adopted identical wording
• comments to section of the Model Act were “very persuasive evidence” of the Illinois General Assembly’s intent in enacting the corresponding section of the Family Support Act, because the legislature had adopted identical wording
• comments to section of the Model Act were “very persuasive evidence” of the Illinois General Assembly’s intent in enacting the corresponding section of the Family Support Act, because the legislature had adopted identical wording

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).