res judicata bars consideration of issues doctrine (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

res judicata bars consideration of issues doctrine in Illinois

37 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 15 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (14)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Blairgreen
ill · 2005 · cited in 20 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2007–2026
2 sentences

2026“The doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and decided on direct appeal.” Id. at 443 .

2025By contrast, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and decided on direct appeal.” Id. at 443 .

1520
People v. Westgreen
ill · 1999 · cited in 6 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2005–2023
2 sentences

2023People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999); accord 3 Black’s Law Dictionary 1336-37 (8th ed. 2004) (“res judicata is an issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision”). ¶ 10 An allegation of a violation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is evaluated under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted in Illinois by People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526-27 (1984).

2017People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005), citing People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999).

66
People v. Townsgreen
ill · 1998 · cited in 10 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015
2 sentences

2015Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d at 510 (citing People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998)).

2015Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d at 510 (citing People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998)).

410
People v. Griffingreen
ill · 1997 · cited in 6 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1999–2000
2 sentences

2000Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502 ; People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65, 73 (1997).

2000Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502 ; Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d at 73 .

26
In Re Leona W.green
ill · 2008 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2026
2 sentences

2026“For res judicata to apply, there must have been a final judgment on the merits of the case.” In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 455 (2008).

2022“For res judicata to apply, there must have been a final judgment on the merits of the case.” In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 455 , 888 N.E.2d 72, 81 (2008).

22
People v. Williamsgreen
ill · 1990 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005); People v. Williams, 138 Ill. 2d 377, 392 (1990).

2007People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005); People v. Williams, 138 Ill. 2d 377, 392 (1990).

22
People v. Whiteheadgreen
ill · 1996 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998); People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 371 (1996).

2002People v. Towns, 182 Ill.2d 491, 502 , 231 Ill.Dec. 557 , 696 N.E.2d 1128 (1998); People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill.2d 355, 371 , 215 Ill.Dec. 164 , 662 N.E.2d 1304 (1996).

22
People v. Floresgreen
ill · 1992 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025As noted earlier, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and definitively settled by judicial decision.” People v. Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 103 . “[W]here a petitioner has previously taken a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually decided by the court, and any other claims that could have been presented to the reviewing court, if not presented, are waived.” People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 274 (1992).

11
People v. Collinsgreen
ill · 2002 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025However, the aforementioned low threshold does not excuse a pro se defendant from providing adequate factual support for his claims—he must still “supply sufficient factual basis to show the allegations in the petition are ‘capable of objective or independent corroboration.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d 59, 67 (2002)). ¶ 36 The doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and decided on direct appeal.

11
Strickland v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999); accord 3 Black’s Law Dictionary 1336-37 (8th ed. 2004) (“res judicata is an issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision”). ¶ 10 An allegation of a violation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is evaluated under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted in Illinois by People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526-27 (1984).

11
People v. Albanesegreen
ill · 1984 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999); accord 3 Black’s Law Dictionary 1336-37 (8th ed. 2004) (“res judicata is an issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision”). ¶ 10 An allegation of a violation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is evaluated under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted in Illinois by People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526-27 (1984).

11
People v. Simmsgreen
ill · 2000 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022“The petitioner may not avoid the bar of res judicata simply by rephrasing issues previously addressed on direct appeal.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2000); People v. Munz, 2021 IL App (2d) 180873, ¶ 29 (finding an argument barred by res judicata where the argument was a “repackaged version of the argument” rejected on direct appeal). ¶ 50 On direct appeal, appellate counsel first noted the pro se contentions made by defendant in the trial court that established a possible neglect of defendant’s case.

11
People v. Munzgreen
illappct · 2021 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022“The petitioner may not avoid the bar of res judicata simply by rephrasing issues previously addressed on direct appeal.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2000); People v. Munz, 2021 IL App (2d) 180873, ¶ 29 (finding an argument barred by res judicata where the argument was a “repackaged version of the argument” rejected on direct appeal). ¶ 50 On direct appeal, appellate counsel first noted the pro se contentions made by defendant in the trial court that established a possible neglect of defendant’s case.

11
People v. Haynesgreen
ill · 2000 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022See People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005) (providing that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and decided”); see also People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437, 461 (2000) (“Points previously raised at trial and other collateral proceedings cannot form the basis of a section 2-1401 petition for relief.”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Montanez green
ill · 2023
2 sentences

2025As noted earlier, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and definitively settled by judicial decision.” People v. Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 103 . “[W]here a petitioner has previously taken a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually decided by the court, and any other claims that could have been presented to the reviewing court, if not presented, are waived.” People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 274 (1992).

2024Defendant did not appeal this dismissal. ¶ 25 In his reply brief, defendant maintains that his claim is not barred by res judicata because the 2021 amendment to the HCA, which form “the central kernel” of his present claim did not exist at the time of his previous sentencing challenges and his claim satisfied the requisite cause prong for this reason. ¶ 26 “The doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and definitively settled by judicial decision.” People v. Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 103 .

42024–2025
People v. Peeples green
ill · 2002
2 sentences

2015Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d at 510 (citing People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998)).

2015Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d at 510 (citing People v. Towns, 182 Ill. 2d 491, 502 (1998)).

22015–2015
People v. Clark green
ill · 2023
1 sentence

2025In 9 No. 1-24-1175 proceedings under the Act, “fundamental fairness for relaxing the doctrine [of res judicata] is established by satisfying the requirements of the cause-and-prejudice test.” People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 45 .

12025–2025
Wasleff v. Dever green
illappct · 1990
1 sentence

2020Id. ¶ 42 Further, “the doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues that were previously raised and decided on direct appeal.” People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005).

12020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (29) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (10) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (8) IL § 720 ILCS 5/9-1 (7) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (5) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (5) IL § 725 ILCS 5/116-3 (3) IL § 725 ILCS 5/119-5 (3) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-4 (3) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (3) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-6 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 37 (1999–2026) OH 2 (2009–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check