Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as “[a] voluntary agreement between opposing parties concerning some relevant point.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1427 (7th ed. 1999). The agreed order entered into by the parties on September 9, 1997, also constituted a voluntary agreement between opposing parties concerning a relevant issue. Respondent also claims that Gibbs conflicts with another case from the Fourth District, In re Marriage of Fox, 191 Ill. App. 3d 514 (1989). We d 4, 618-19 (1993) (concluding that trial court’s authority to modify child support was limited to relief sought in petition); In re J.K., 229 Ill. App. 3d 569, 573-74 (1992) (noting that court is without authority to revoke minor’s probation without having before it a petition requesting such relief); Ottwell v. Ottwell, 167 Ill. App. 3d 901, 908-09 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that respondent’s reliance 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition (B) holding that the trial court erred in unilaterally modifying pastdue and future childsupport payments where the only petition before the court was a petition for citation alleging that the respondent was in arrears in his child support (C) holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted (D) holding that the trial court had not erred in including the cost of health insurance covering both the custodial parent and the parties child in determining the noncustodial parents childsupport obligation (E) holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition
Output (English): holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition