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.
30 Illinois opinions name it 3 courts 1901–2026 29 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. Morgangreen2 sentences2026The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community based on the specific facts of the case. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)- (3) (West 2024). ¶ 15 Pursuant to a recent decision from the Illinois Supreme Cou 2026However, a trial court may deny pretrial release when the State files a verified petition and proves by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) the defendant poses “a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case;” and (3) no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate this threat. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)-(3) (West 2024); see Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 24 . | 6 | 10 |
People v. Nettlesgreen1 sentence2026People v. Nettles, 2024 IL App (4th) 240962, ¶ 29 (citing United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 2019) (“We reviewed forfeited arguments for plain error, whereas waiver extinguishes error and precludes appellate review.”)). ¶ 33 In the present case, the defendant’s motion for relief asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State’s petition to deny his pretrial release due to the State’s failure to meet its burden of proof for “any of the above,” which includes the elements of the statute: that the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a qual | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Valerie Floresgreen1 sentence2026People v. Nettles, 2024 IL App (4th) 240962, ¶ 29 (citing United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 2019) (“We reviewed forfeited arguments for plain error, whereas waiver extinguishes error and precludes appellate review.”)). ¶ 33 In the present case, the defendant’s motion for relief asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State’s petition to deny his pretrial release due to the State’s failure to meet its burden of proof for “any of the above,” which includes the elements of the statute: that the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a qual | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2025Id. § 110-6.1(a), (e); see Clark, 2024 IL 130364, ¶ 20 . 1 Thereafter, on December 19, 2024, defendant entered a guilty plea, and on April 11, 2025, the circuit court sentenced defendant to 12 years in the Department of Corrections. 2025Id. § 110-6.1(a), (e); see Clark, 2024 IL 130364, ¶ 20 . 1 Thereafter, on December 19, 2024, defendant entered a guilty plea, and on April 11, 2025, the circuit court sentenced defendant to 12 years in the Department of Corrections. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coegreen1 sentence2025However, section 110-6(a) does not require the same. 7 No. 1-25-1205B See People v. Coe, 2024 IL App (5th) 240976, ¶ 35 (“nothing in [the section] requires the State to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed each element of the subsequent charge.”) ¶ 20 Here, the circuit court granted Hawthorne pretrial release on his ADF charge in 2023. | 1 | 1 |
Bazydlo v. Volantgreen1 sentence2024Compare Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “probable cause” as “[a] reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime” with Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “clear and convincing evidence” as “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain”) and Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 , noting that evidence is clear and convincing “if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question”); see also Bazdylo v. | 1 | 1 |
Chaudhary v. Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2024Compare Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “probable cause” as “[a] reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime” with Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “clear and convincing evidence” as “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain”) and Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 , noting that evidence is clear and convincing “if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question”); see also Bazdylo v. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shannongreen1 sentence2024See People v. Shannon, 2024 IL App (5th) 231051, ¶ 17 . ¶ 15 As a preliminary matter, we note that though defendant argues all three issues in her memorandum in support of her appeal, defendant’s first issue is not mentioned in her notice of appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Perezgreen1 sentence2024Rather, regarding proof of the commission of an offense, the plain language of section 110-6 requires only that a defendant be “charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant’s pretrial release.” Id. § 110-6(a); see People v. McClure, 2024 IL App (5th) 240027, ¶ 26 (recognizing the lower threshold in section 110-6(a) compared to 110-6.1); see also Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230504, ¶ 19 (the defendant’s charge of battery causing bodily harm was sufficient to support section 110-6(a) revocation). 3 Here, defendant was charged with a felony and mu | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCluregreen1 sentence2024Rather, regarding proof of the commission of an offense, the plain language of section 110-6 requires only that a defendant be “charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant’s pretrial release.” Id. § 110-6(a); see People v. McClure, 2024 IL App (5th) 240027, ¶ 26 (recognizing the lower threshold in section 110-6(a) compared to 110-6.1); see also Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230504, ¶ 19 (the defendant’s charge of battery causing bodily harm was sufficient to support section 110-6(a) revocation). 3 Here, defendant was charged with a felony and mu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coxgreen1 sentence2023Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980)). ¶ 30 We all agree that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident and presumption great that Riaz committed the offense of criminal sexual abuse, a detainable offense under the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022); 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022). | 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. Trottier
green
2 sentences2024Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 . -2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230483-U ¶7 To begin, we reject defendant’s argument that a synopsis is insufficient to demonstrate that the proof is evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. 2024Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 . ¶7 To begin, we reject defendant’s argument that a synopsis is insufficient to demonstrate that the proof is evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. | 6 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Hammerand
green
2 sentences2026Rather, *** the plain language of section 110-6 requires only that a defendant be ‘charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant's pretrial release.’ [Citations.]” (Emphases added.) People v. Hammerand, 2024 IL App (2d) 240500, ¶ 19 . ¶ 43 “During the hearing for revocation, the defendant shall be represented by counsel and have an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation and evidence in mitigation. 2024Although a petition to deny pretrial release requires that the State show by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or presumption great that a defendant committed a detainable offense (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)), section 110-6(a) contains -7- 2024 IL App (2d) 240500 no corresponding language that, in order to revoke the release, the State must prove that a defendant committed a felony or Class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release. | 2 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Cousins
green
2 sentences2026Id. § 110-6.1(e). 2026S. Ct. R. 604(h)(7). ¶ 14 “To detain a defendant, the State must file a verified petition requesting the denial of pretrial release, and the circuit court shall hold a hearing on the petition. [Citation.] When -5- 1-26-0145B seeking denial of pretrial release, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a detainable offense ([citation]); (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Lanier
neutral
1 sentence2026However, a live round was in the bag with the gun, so it could be quickly loaded and fired, and “a person does not have to be an active shooter to be dangerous for the purposes of pretrial detention.” People v. Lanier, 2025 IL App (1st) 242603, ¶ 75 . ¶ 40 In his motion for relief, Mr. Davis cited Martinez, 2024 IL App (1st) 240241-U , an unpublished decision in which we reversed an order for pretrial detention where the defendant was charged with UPWF. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Rice
green
1 sentence2026On April 14, 2026, defendant filed a motion to consolidate the two appeals, which this court granted. - 16 - 1-26-0484B) 1-26-0530B) Cons. convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk; and (3) no conditions could mitigate this threat or risk of flight. [Citation.] At each subsequent appearance of the defendant before the court, the statute requires the court to find only that ‘continued detention is necessary to avoid a r | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hongo
green
1 sentence2026Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act or Pretrial Fairness Act (Act) amended the Code by “abolishing traditional monetary bail in favor of pretrial release on personal recognizance or with conditions of release.” People v. Hongo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232482, ¶ 20 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2026On April 14, 2026, defendant filed a motion to consolidate the two appeals, which this court granted. - 16 - 1-26-0484B) 1-26-0530B) Cons. convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk; and (3) no conditions could mitigate this threat or risk of flight. [Citation.] At each subsequent appearance of the defendant before the court, the statute requires the court to find only that ‘continued detention is necessary to avoid a r | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Forthenberry
green
1 sentence2024In People v. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶ 42 , this court held “if a memorandum is filed, it will be the controlling document for issues or claims on appeal and we will not reference the notice of appeal to seek out further arguments not raised in the memorandum, except in limited circumstances, e.g., to determine jurisdiction.” Other appellate districts have also adopted this holding. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2023Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280 (1980)). ¶ 30 We all agree that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident and presumption great that Riaz committed the offense of criminal sexual abuse, a detainable offense under the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022); 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Gorham
green
1 sentence1901Chapter 38, Criminal Code, Div. 14, Par. 631, provides “That no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine * * * except upon conviction by jury; * * * and provided further, that when such waiver of jury is made, imprisonment may follow judgment of the court without conviction by jury. ’ ’ In paragraph 634, supra, “Any person convicted in a court of this state having jurisdiction of any crime or misdemeanor the punishment of which is confinement in the county jail, may be sentenced by the court in which such conviction is, had. * * *” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle Edition, defines c | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Commonwealth v. Lockwood
green
1 sentence1901Chapter 38, Criminal Code, Div. 14, Par. 631, provides “That no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine * * * except upon conviction by jury; * * * and provided further, that when such waiver of jury is made, imprisonment may follow judgment of the court without conviction by jury. ’ ’ In paragraph 634, supra, “Any person convicted in a court of this state having jurisdiction of any crime or misdemeanor the punishment of which is confinement in the county jail, may be sentenced by the court in which such conviction is, had. * * *” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle Edition, defines c | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Nason v. Staples
neutral
1 sentence1901Chapter 38, Criminal Code, Div. 14, Par. 631, provides “That no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine * * * except upon conviction by jury; * * * and provided further, that when such waiver of jury is made, imprisonment may follow judgment of the court without conviction by jury. ’ ’ In paragraph 634, supra, “Any person convicted in a court of this state having jurisdiction of any crime or misdemeanor the punishment of which is confinement in the county jail, may be sentenced by the court in which such conviction is, had. * * *” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle Edition, defines c | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.