Cray v. Lee
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Second District affirmed a plenary order of protection entered under section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 where the respondent called his former dating partner 112 times in a single overnight period and left threatening and suicidal messages. The court rejected the pro se respondent's arguments as forfeited for lack of authority (including reliance on a nonexistent, apparently AI-hallucinated case) and as unsupported by the record.
Key Facts
Parties had a dating relationship of about two years that ended roughly one to two months before the hearing.
After the breakup, respondent continued calling and sent a barrage of text messages; petitioner alleged a nearly 10-minute voice memo stating petitioner would pay "in blood" for wasting respondent's time.
On October 15, 2025, between 2:44 a.m. and 8 a.m., respondent called petitioner 112 times; some calls expressed suicidal thoughts.
Petitioner testified respondent tried to run him over with a car, coming within inches of hitting him; this incident was not pleaded in the petition.
Respondent admitted repeated calling, characterized the relationship as "mutual toxicity," and called his suicidal statements a "lapse in judgment."
The trial court found petitioner credible based on demeanor and specificity, and found respondent not credible.
No verbatim transcript existed; the trial court declined to certify respondent's proposed bystander's report and certified its own.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of Lake County (No. 25-OP-2564, Judge James K. Simonian) entered an ex parte emergency order of protection on October 15, 2025, and a plenary order of protection on November 5, 2025. Respondent appealed pro se to the Appellate Court, Second District.
Holdings
The plenary order of protection was affirmed: over 100 telephone calls in a single overnight period to a former dating partner supported a finding of harassment , and hence abuse , under the Act; respondent's contrary argument—supported only by a nonexistent case—was forfeited for want of authority.
A certified bystander's report is part of the record and must be taken as true and correct absent correction under Rule 329 ; arguments premised on its inaccuracy are rejected.
No procedural due process violation arose from testimony about an unpleaded car incident, because respondent had meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard and could have testified about it.
Factual assertions unsupported by the record (an offer to play more of the voicemail; exclusion of evidence) will not be considered on appeal.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 60/214 (West 2024) – order of protection shall issue upon finding of abuse by a family or household member, subject to section 219.
750 ILCS 60/103(6) – persons who have or have had a dating relationship are family or household members; § 103(1) – abuse includes harassment; § 103(7) – harassment definition, with presumption of emotional distress from repeatedly telephoning petitioner's home or residence; § 208 (jurisdiction); § 219 (plenary orders).
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329 (eff. July 1, 2017).
Porter v. Cub Cadet LLC , 2020 IL App (2d) 190823, ¶ 9 (arguments without citation of authority are forfeited).
Colman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd. , 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 419 (1987) (unsupported factual assertions not considered).
Neighbors Against a Marijuana Dispensary , 2026 IL App (1st) 241910, ¶ 42 (due process: meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard).
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n , 2026 IL App (1st) 251462, ¶ 50 (AI-hallucinated cases).
In re Marriage of Breyer , 324 Ill. App. 3d 305, 315 (2001), distinguished as inapposite.
Clarification: nothing in the harassment definition excludes conduct occurring during grief or emotional turmoil or requires proof of threats.
Practical Implications
A concentrated burst of calls within hours can satisfy the statutory presumption of emotional distress; no multi-day or multi-week pattern is required.
Emotional distress of the respondent following a breakup is not a statutory defense to harassment, and the petitioner need not prove explicit threats.
Verify every citation. The court flagged two nonexistent cases and expressly invoked forfeiture; AI-generated citations can be case-dispositive.
If the trial court certifies its own bystander's report, promptly pursue correction under Rule 329 in the trial court—failure to do so binds the appellant to that record.
Evidence of incidents not pleaded in the petition may be admitted; respond by testifying and building the record rather than raising due process on appeal.
Distinguishing points for future cases: credibility findings and the admitted volume of calls drove the result; a respondent who denies the calls or preserves evidentiary objections presents a different record.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23(b) order and is not precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1). The commentary on AI-hallucinated citations is observation; the operative rulings are forfeiture, the record-on-appeal principles, and the due process analysis. The court did not reach the merits of whether a short, concentrated burst of calls could ever fall outside harassment, resolving that argument on forfeiture.
Overview
The Second District affirmed a plenary order of protection entered under section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 where the respondent called his former dating partner 112 times in a single overnight period and left threatening and suicidal messages. The court rejected the pro se respondent's arguments as forfeited for lack of authority (including reliance on a nonexistent, apparently AI-hallucinated case) and as unsupported by the record.
Key Facts
Parties had a dating relationship of about two years that ended roughly one to two months before the hearing.
After the breakup, respondent continued calling and sent a barrage of text messages; petitioner alleged a nearly 10-minute voice memo stating petitioner would pay "in blood" for wasting respondent's time.
On October 15, 2025, between 2:44 a.m. and 8 a.m., respondent called petitioner 112 times; some calls expressed suicidal thoughts.
Petitioner testified respondent tried to run him over with a car, coming within inches of hitting him; this incident was not pleaded in the petition.
Respondent admitted repeated calling, characterized the relationship as "mutual toxicity," and called his suicidal statements a "lapse in judgment."
The trial court found petitioner credible based on demeanor and specificity, and found respondent not credible.
No verbatim transcript existed; the trial court declined to certify respondent's proposed bystander's report and certified its own.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of Lake County (No. 25-OP-2564, Judge James K. Simonian) entered an ex parte emergency order of protection on October 15, 2025, and a plenary order of protection on November 5, 2025. Respondent appealed pro se to the Appellate Court, Second District.
Holdings
The plenary order of protection was affirmed: over 100 telephone calls in a single overnight period to a former dating partner supported a finding of harassment , and hence abuse , under the Act; respondent's contrary argument—supported only by a nonexistent case—was forfeited for want of authority.
A certified bystander's report is part of the record and must be taken as true and correct absent correction under Rule 329 ; arguments premised on its inaccuracy are rejected.
No procedural due process violation arose from testimony about an unpleaded car incident, because respondent had meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard and could have testified about it.
Factual assertions unsupported by the record (an offer to play more of the voicemail; exclusion of evidence) will not be considered on appeal.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 60/214 (West 2024) – order of protection shall issue upon finding of abuse by a family or household member, subject to section 219.
750 ILCS 60/103(6) – persons who have or have had a dating relationship are family or household members; § 103(1) – abuse includes harassment; § 103(7) – harassment definition, with presumption of emotional distress from repeatedly telephoning petitioner's home or residence; § 208 (jurisdiction); § 219 (plenary orders).
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329 (eff. July 1, 2017).
Porter v. Cub Cadet LLC , 2020 IL App (2d) 190823, ¶ 9 (arguments without citation of authority are forfeited).
Colman v. Windy City Balloon Port, Ltd. , 160 Ill. App. 3d 408, 419 (1987) (unsupported factual assertions not considered).
Neighbors Against a Marijuana Dispensary , 2026 IL App (1st) 241910, ¶ 42 (due process: meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard).
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n , 2026 IL App (1st) 251462, ¶ 50 (AI-hallucinated cases).
In re Marriage of Breyer , 324 Ill. App. 3d 305, 315 (2001), distinguished as inapposite.
Clarification: nothing in the harassment definition excludes conduct occurring during grief or emotional turmoil or requires proof of threats.
Practical Implications
A concentrated burst of calls within hours can satisfy the statutory presumption of emotional distress; no multi-day or multi-week pattern is required.
Emotional distress of the respondent following a breakup is not a statutory defense to harassment, and the petitioner need not prove explicit threats.
Verify every citation. The court flagged two nonexistent cases and expressly invoked forfeiture; AI-generated citations can be case-dispositive.
If the trial court certifies its own bystander's report, promptly pursue correction under Rule 329 in the trial court—failure to do so binds the appellant to that record.
Evidence of incidents not pleaded in the petition may be admitted; respond by testifying and building the record rather than raising due process on appeal.
Distinguishing points for future cases: credibility findings and the admitted volume of calls drove the result; a respondent who denies the calls or preserves evidentiary objections presents a different record.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23(b) order and is not precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1). The commentary on AI-hallucinated citations is observation; the operative rulings are forfeiture, the record-on-appeal principles, and the due process analysis. The court did not reach the merits of whether a short, concentrated burst of calls could ever fall outside harassment, resolving that argument on forfeiture.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About a Safety-Related Family Law Matter?
If there is immediate danger, call 911. Otherwise, start a conflict-check intake and flag any urgent court date or safety issue.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.