Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2009 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Emsgreen1 sentence2009A shotgun is a type of firearm, which is “any device by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas.” 1 430 ILCS 65/ 1.1 (West 2006); 720 ILCS 5/2 — 7.5 (West 2006); People v. Ems, 81 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Frieberggreen1 sentence2006“It is the jury’s function to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence, and this court will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.” People v. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d 326, 359 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Gerrity v. Beattygreen2 sentences1981See Gerrity v. Beatty (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 47, 51 , 373 N.E.2d 1323, 1325 , holding that section 24 — 24 represents “a legislative determination that the orderly conduct of the schools and the maintenance of a sound learning atmosphere require that • * * [a] teacher [have] disciplinary and supervisory authority similar to that which exists between parent and child.” Perhaps as enlightening as the language the legislature chose to use in section 24 — 24 is the language that it chose to avoid. 1981See Gerrity v. Beatty (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 47, 51 , 373 N.E.2d 1323, 1325 , holding that section 24 — 24 represents “a legislative determination that the orderly conduct of the schools and the maintenance of a sound learning atmosphere require that • * * [a] teacher [have] disciplinary and supervisory authority similar to that which exists between parent and child.” Perhaps as enlightening as the language the legislature chose to use in section 24 — 24 is the language that it chose to avoid. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Greene
green
2 sentences2001The court stated that “the reference in section 24 — 1(a)(7) to ‘explosive substance’ indicates that it was the intent of the legislature in adopting this particular section to cover devices such as bombs, bombshells, grenades or bottles containing explosive substances” and that “the devices intended to be prohibited by this provision of the statute are those containing explosive material.” Greene, 96 Ill. 2d at 338 . 2001The court stated that "the reference in section 24--1(a)(7) to 'explosive substance' indicates that it was the intent of the legislature in adopting this particular section to cover devices such as bombs, bombshells, grenades or bottles containing explosive substances" and that "the devices intended to be prohibited by this provision of the statute are those containing explosive material." Greene , 96 Ill. 2d at 338 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Hobbs
green
2 sentences1982Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—3.2(b) (1).) Defendant argues that using his previous 1976 felony conviction for robbery to charge him with the unlawful use of weapons under section 24 — 1(b) of the Criminal Code, which thus enhances the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, and again using the same prior felony to impose an extended-term sentence under section 5 — 5—3.2(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections, constitutes double enhancement, prohibited by the decision of People v. Hobbs (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 242 , 427 N.E.2d 558 . 1982Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 5—3.2(b) (1).) Defendant argues that using his previous 1976 felony conviction for robbery to charge him with the unlawful use of weapons under section 24 — 1(b) of the Criminal Code, which thus enhances the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, and again using the same prior felony to impose an extended-term sentence under section 5 — 5—3.2(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections, constitutes double enhancement, prohibited by the decision of People v. Hobbs (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 242 , 427 N.E.2d 558 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Love
neutral
1 sentence1979This holding was found controlling in People v. Love (1st Dist. 1978), 63 Ill. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Tidwell v. Smith
green
1 sentence1971Such use of section 24 is not within the intent and purpose of the legislature.” In the case at bar, as in Tidwell, supra, the suit was filed within a few days before the running of the statute of limitations but unlike Tidwell, the defendant at bar was not served with process in the initial suit. | 1 | 1971–1971 |