Bindinglaw

IL · rules

Ill. S. Ct. R. 578

Burden of Proof

activein force · 2021-05-19 – presentact-effective-date

The prosecuting entity must prove the ordinance violation by a preponderance of the evidence;

meaning it is more likely true than not that the violation occurred.

History

Adopted December 7, 2011, effective immediately. Committee Comment (December 7, 2011) This rule restates case law which holds that the burden of proof in ordinance violation cases is the civil law standard of preponderance of the evidence rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. City of Mattoon v. Mentzer, 282 Ill. App. 3d 628, 634 (4th Dist. 1996) (citing Chicago v. Joyce, 38 Ill. 2d 368, 373 (1967)).

Provenance

Source
illinoiscourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-14
Edition
2026-09-14
Content hash
d9212d1667f8eb164b82e5bf88d94ccd7406156fedf8f76514e666fbe59c087a
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
Ill. S. Ct. R. 578 — Burden of Proof · binding.law