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.
31 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 20 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026Id.; People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 484 (2010). 2023Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 ; People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 484 (2010). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2025See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). ¶ 21 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People 12 v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007). 2024Second, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the combined prosecutorial errors satisfies the second prong of the plain error analysis. ¶ 26 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “ ‘(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007) (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005)). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2024Genus acknowledges that he has forfeited these claims as he failed to raise them in his posttrial motion (People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (claims of error not raised in a posttrial motion are forfeited)) but urges us to consider these claims for plain error. ¶ 40 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005)). 2024Second, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the combined prosecutorial errors satisfies the second prong of the plain error analysis. ¶ 26 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “ ‘(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007) (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005)). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Enochgreen2 sentences2025See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). ¶ 21 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People 12 v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007). 2024Genus acknowledges that he has forfeited these claims as he failed to raise them in his posttrial motion (People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (claims of error not raised in a posttrial motion are forfeited)) but urges us to consider these claims for plain error. ¶ 40 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005)). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hilliergreen2 sentences2024Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . 2024Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . | 2 | 6 |
People v. Moongreen2 sentences2025See People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 20 . 2023See People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 21 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2017People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). 2017People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
People v. McLauringreen2 sentences2010People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 , 922 N.E.2d 344, 351 (2009). 2010People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 , 922 N.E.2d 344, 351 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
Norwell v. City of Cincinnatigreen1 sentence2023See Norwell, 414 U.S. at 16 . ¶ 16 Having found a clear or obvious error, we must next determine whether this otherwise forfeited error is reversible under the second prong of plain error review. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harveygreen1 sentence2021See Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d at 389 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cosbygreen1 sentence2020People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 272 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leachgreen1 sentence2017“A defendant is not entitled to review of a claimed error unless he has made a timely objection at trial and raised the issue in a posttrial motion.” People v. Leach, 2012 IL 111534, ¶ 60 (citing People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)). ¶ 87 Defendant does not ask us to review his contentions under the plain-error doctrine, which provides a limited avenue for reaching an otherwise forfeited claim. | 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. Sebby
green
2 sentences2025Under the first prong, to determine whether the evidence is close, “a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of it within the context of the case.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 53 . 2024Under the first prong, to determine whether the evidence is close, “a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of it within the context of the case.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 53 . | 6 | 2022–2025 |
People v. Sandifer
green
2 sentences2017People v. Sandifer, 2016 IL App (1st) 133397, ¶ 17 . 2017People v. Sandifer, 2016 IL App (1st) 133397, ¶ 17 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2014App. 3d 183 (2009), issued by our court on November 18, 2009. ¶ 100 For example, in People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 , Justice Karmeier observed that when a defendant seeks review of an otherwise forfeited error by relying on the closely balanced prong of plain error, a reviewing court’s preliminary step should be to first evaluate “the totality of the evidence” in the case, as a practical matter. 2013App. 3d 183 (2009), issued by our court on November 18, 2009. ¶ 100 For example, in People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 , Justice Karmeier observed that when a defendant seeks review of an otherwise forfeited error by relying on the closely balanced prong of plain error, a reviewing court’s preliminary step should be to first evaluate “the totality of the evidence” in the case, as a practical matter. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2026As our supreme court has explained: “The plain error rule allows courts to review forfeited errors under two alternative prongs, when a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of -7- the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Johnson, 2025 IL 130447, ¶ 34 . ¶ 18 Under either prong, th | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.