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.
33 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 14 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. Rossgreen2 sentences2022See Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶ 63 (noting the recent trend in treating offenders under 21 years old differently than adults in remanding the 18-year-old defendant’s postconviction petition for further proceedings); Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶ 34 (remanding for further postconviction proceedings on the 18-year-old defendant’s petition because the law has continued to trend in the direction of increased protections for youthful offenders); People v. Ross, 2020 IL App (1st) 171202, ¶ 27 (ordering further proceedings on the 19-year-old defendant’s petition to allow the trial co 2022See Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶ 63 (noting the recent trend in treating offenders under 21 years old differently than adults in remanding the 18-year-old defendant’s postconviction petition for further proceedings); Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶ 34 (remanding for further postconviction proceedings on the 18-year-old defendant’s petition because the law has continued to trend in the direction of increased protections for youthful offenders); People v. Ross, 2020 IL App (1st) 171202, ¶ 27 (ordering further proceedings on the 19-year-old defendant’s petition to allow the trial co | 2 | 2 |
People v. Franklingreen2 sentences2022People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶ 51 . -6- ¶ 15 Since our supreme court has opened the door for the Miller tenets to apply to young adult offenders in sentencing, this court has remanded numerous cases for further postconviction proceedings where the defendants, between the ages of 18 and 20, have yet to have the opportunity to ask a court to consider factors which would establish that they were more akin to juveniles than adults at the time of their offenses. 2022People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶ 51 . -6- ¶ 15 Since our supreme court has opened the door for the Miller tenets to apply to young adult offenders in sentencing, this court has remanded numerous cases for further postconviction proceedings where the defendants, between the ages of 18 and 20, have yet to have the opportunity to ask a court to consider factors which would establish that they were more akin to juveniles than adults at the time of their offenses. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Averettgreen2 sentences2010See People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2010). 2010See People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hostettergreen2 sentences2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a “substantial quantum of incompetent evidence.” “This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is ‘so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill. 2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2009Defendant urges this court to consider his claim in the context of the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 80 L. 2009Defendant urges this court to consider his claim in the context of the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 80 L. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2000People v. Brown, 185 Ill. 2d 229, 254-55 (1998). 2000People v. Brown, 185 Ill.2d 229, 254-55 , 235 Ill.Dec. 626 , 705 N.E.2d 809 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Alexandergreen2 sentences2026In doing so, the trial court has broad discretion and its decisions are entitled “great deference” because it is in a superior position to this court to consider factors such as “the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 212-13 (Internal quotation marks omitted). 2025In doing so, the trial court has broad discretion and its sentencing decisions are entitled “great deference” because it is in a superior position to this court to consider factors such as “the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d at 212-13 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2025See Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 45 (noting that section 5-4.5-105 “requires the trial court to consider factors taken from the Supreme Court’s list”); People v. Clark, 2024 IL 127838, ¶ 73 (the “clear purpose” of section 5-4.5-105(a) is “to require courts sentencing juvenile offenders to consider the many differences between juvenile offenders and adults”). ¶ 49 Specifically, section 5-4.5-105(a) requires a sentencing court to consider the following factors in mitigation: “(1) the person’s age, impetuosity, and level of maturity at the time of the offense, including the ability to consider risks | 1 | 1 |
People v. Enochgreen1 sentence2022People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Powersgreen1 sentence2019In re Marriage of Powers, 252 Ill. App. 3d 506, 508 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Emersongreen2 sentences2001People v. Emerson, 189 Ill. 2d 436, 479 , 727 N.E.2d 302, 326 (2000). 2001People v. Emerson, 189 Ill. 2d 436, 479 , 727 N.E.2d 302, 326 (2000). | 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. Inman
green
2 sentences2024Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 . 2024Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 . ¶ 20 Additionally, the circuit court made the necessary findings to excuse defendant’s physical presence at the detention hearing. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Ernest Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004); and People v. Dennis Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 . ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 ; People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (Ernest Thompson); and People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Dennis Thompson). ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Castleberry
green
2 sentences2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Ernest Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004); and People v. Dennis Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 . ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 ; People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (Ernest Thompson); and People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Dennis Thompson). ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Ernest Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004); and People v. Dennis Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 . ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 ; People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (Ernest Thompson); and People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Dennis Thompson). ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Aguilar
green
2 sentences2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Ernest Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004); and People v. Dennis Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 . ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 ; People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (Ernest Thompson); and People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Dennis Thompson). ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. McFadden
green
2 sentences2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 , People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Ernest Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004); and People v. Dennis Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 . ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017Resolution of this issue places us at the junction of several recent supreme court decisions: Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 ; People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 ; People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 ; People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (Ernest Thompson); and People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Dennis Thompson). ¶ 13 In its original responsive brief, the State asserted that the respondent had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing, in his initial brief, to ask this court to consider his claim under the plain error doctrine. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Sutton v. Overcash
green
2 sentences2000Sutton v. Overcash, 251 Ill. 2000Sutton v. Overcash , 251 Ill. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Snyder
green
1 sentence2026People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, ¶ 36 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Marriage of Haken
green
1 sentence2025Haken, 394 Ill. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Martin
green
2 sentences2024Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 . ¶ 18 In his supporting memorandum, defendant relies on this court’s decisions in People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826 , and People v. Atterberry, 2023 IL App (4th) 231028 , to support his assertion the circuit court “failed to make an adequate record for review by failing to explain why no condition could mitigate any risk.” (Emphasis in original.) In Martin, we found “[t]he [circuit] court’s oral statement that [defendant] needs to be detained, with no further detail provided in its detention order, falls short of complying with the clear legislat 2024Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 . ¶ 18 In his supporting memorandum, defendant relies on this court’s decisions in People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826 , and People v. Atterberry, 2023 IL App (4th) 231028 , to support his assertion the circuit court “failed to make an adequate record for review by failing to explain why no condition could mitigate any risk.” (Emphasis in original.) In Martin, we found “[t]he [circuit] court’s oral statement that [defendant] needs to be detained, with no further detail provided in its detention order, falls short of complying with the clear legislat | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Marriage of Chapa
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2023The State requested a sentence of “several decades.” The State confirmed that defendant had no criminal history. ¶ 27 In mitigation, counsel noted that defendant was 25 years old when he committed the offense and requested the court consider the factors provided in People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 , and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People Ex Rel. Delisi Construction Co. v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Geiler
neutral
1 sentence2015Accordingly, a clear and consistent violation of Rule 552 has occurred, dismissal of the defendant's citation is permissible on that basis, and, as a result, there is no need for the circuit court to conduct a prejudice analysis in this case. ¶ 19 CONCLUSION ¶ 20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the July 31, 2014, order of the circuit court of Madison County that granted the motion of the defendant to dismiss the traffic citation issued to him by the Troy police department on May 5, 2014. ¶ 21 Affirmed. 7 2015 IL App (5th) 140423 NO. 5-14-0423 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTR | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2008Thompson , 349 Ill.App.3d at 594 , 285 Ill.Dec. 696 , 812 N.E.2d 516 (first prong of harmless error analysis requires the court to consider whether error "might have contributed to the conviction"). 2008Thompson , 349 Ill.App.3d at 594 , 285 Ill.Dec. 696 , 812 N.E.2d 516 (first prong of harmless error analysis requires the court to consider whether error "might have contributed to the conviction"). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Nieves
green
2 sentences2003In our judgment, this issue comes before us (unnecessarily) too often. 3: There is a real question whether the defendant's claim that the evidence against him "was "not overwhelming" is equivalent to the "factually close" standard required by the caselaw.sufficient to consider this claim where the case law consistently requires in the first instance that the evidence be "factually close." See People v. Nieves , 192 Ill. 2d 487, 502-03 , 737 N.E.2d 150 (2000). 2003In our judgment, this issue comes before us (unnecessarily) too often. 3: There is a real question whether the defendant's claim that the evidence against him "was "not overwhelming" is equivalent to the "factually close" standard required by the caselaw.sufficient to consider this claim where the case law consistently requires in the first instance that the evidence be "factually close." See People v. Nieves , 192 Ill. 2d 487, 502-03 , 737 N.E.2d 150 (2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hamilton v. Lumpkin
green
2 sentences1976Va. 1975), 389 F. Supp. 1069, 1075 , if that conclusion were correct it would have been unnecessary for the court to consider the claim of intentional tactical delay after the court had determined defendants had failed to prove actual prejudice. 1976Va. 1975), 389 F. Supp. 1069, 1075 , if that conclusion were correct it would have been unnecessary for the court to consider the claim of intentional tactical delay after the court had determined defendants had failed to prove actual prejudice. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.
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.