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.
28 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2026 4 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. Bobogreen2 sentences2020App. 3d 884, 890 (2010) (“ ‘Defense counsel’s choice of jury instruction is considered a tactical decision, within the discretion of defense counsel.’ ” (quoting People v. Bobo, 375 Ill. 2018App. 3d 884, 890 (2010) (“ ‘Defense counsel’s choice of jury instruction is considered a tactical decision, within the discretion of defense counsel.’ ” (quoting People v. Bobo, 375 Ill. | 5 | 5 |
People v. Shlimongreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., People v. Shlimon, 232 Ill. 2007People v. Shlimon, 232 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2010People v. Harris, 132 Ill. 2d 366, 391 (1989). 2010People v. Harris, 132 Ill. 2d 366, 391 (1989). | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Desate, Inc.green2 sentences2018See Wright , 292 Ill. 2018See Wright, 292 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
SUSNIS EX REL. SUSNIS v. Radfargreen2 sentences2002See Susnis v. Radfar, 317 Ill. 2002See Susnis v. Radfar , 317 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maldonadogreen2 sentences2018People v. Maldonado , 402 Ill. 2018People v. Maldonado, 402 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. PACE, a SUBURBAN BUS DIV.green1 sentence2025As stated, when making such a determination, “the trial court should apply the same factors used to determine whether barring a witness is an appropriate sanction in an original action.” Id. ¶ 45; Freeman, 2018 IL App (2d) 170169, ¶ 52 (same); Smith, 323 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Gibellina v. Handleygreen1 sentence2025Trial courts have the discretion to rule on any motion filed before a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal if a favorable ruling on that motion “could result in a final disposition of the cause.” Id. § 2-1009(b); Gibellina v. Handley, 127 Ill. 2d 122, 137-38 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Craysgreen1 sentence2025As stated, when making such a determination, “the trial court should apply the same factors used to determine whether barring a witness is an appropriate sanction in an original action.” Id. ¶ 45; Freeman, 2018 IL App (2d) 170169, ¶ 52 (same); Smith, 323 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Boehle v. OSF Healthcare Systemgreen2 sentences2025See Ritschel Boehle, 2018 IL App (2d) 160975, ¶¶ 44-45 (holding that although a plaintiff may “use a voluntary dismissal to attempt to avoid the consequences of a court order,” and nothing prevents a plaintiff from disclosing a new witness in a refiled action, the trial court still must consider prior litigation when a case is refiled and has “the discretion to bar or otherwise limit certain witnesses and/or evidence in the refiled action” (emphasis in original)). ¶ 54 As the trial court clearly had the authority to consider the prior litigation in the underlying refiled case and the discretio 2025See Ritschel Boehle, 2018 IL App (2d) 160975, ¶¶ 44-45 (holding that although a plaintiff may “use a voluntary dismissal to attempt to avoid the consequences of a court order,” and nothing prevents a plaintiff from disclosing a new witness in a refiled action, the trial court still must consider prior litigation when a case is refiled and has “the discretion to bar or otherwise limit certain witnesses and/or evidence in the refiled action” (emphasis in original)). ¶ 54 As the trial court clearly had the authority to consider the prior litigation in the underlying refiled case and the discretio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mimsgreen1 sentence2020See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 14.05, 14.06 (approved Jan. 24, 2014) (hereinafter IPI Criminal Nos. 14.05, 14.06). ¶ 47 “ ‘Defense counsel’s choice of jury instruction is considered a tactical decision, within the discretion of defense counsel.’ ” People v. Mims, 403 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2020See Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Combs v. Steele
neutral
2 sentences1975(Combs v. Steele, 80 Ill. 101 .) Factors relevant to the exercise of this discretion are the subject matter under litigation, the reason for the dismissal, and the consequences thereof. 1975Further mitigation against adhering to an inflexible application of this rule stems from the realization that the dismissal of an action for want of prosecution is within the discretion of the hearing court, with the right to reinstate likewise being a matter of judicial discretion. ( Combs v. Steele, 80 Ill. 101 .) Factors relevant to the exercise of this discretion are the subject matter under litigation, the reason for the dismissal, and the consequences thereof. | 3 | 1968–1975 |
Froehlich v. Sheehan
green
2 sentences2003Froehlich v. Sheehan, 240 Ill. 2003Froehlich v. Sheehan , 240 Ill. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2026People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 106 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Utley
green
1 sentence2020The Omitted Pro Se Claim That Trial Counsel Rendered Ineffective Assistance by Not Filing a Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements to the Police ¶ 62 In the amended postconviction petition, Farrington gave an explanation for declining to pursue the pro se claim that Schmidt had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for the suppression of defendant’s statements to the police. “[I]t is well settled,” Farrington wrote, “that defense counsel’s choice of what motions will be filed is considered a tactical decision and within the discretion of defense counsel.” And yet, defendant obs | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Kuehner
green
1 sentence2020Farrington wrote: “Governed by the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of People v. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695 , the undersigned attorney cannot sign this pleading as to each of the following claims because of a professional inability to pursue claims believed to be meritless.” ¶ 25 The first pro se claim that Farrington declined to adopt was the claim of “[i]neffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to file a Motion to Suppress.” Farrington explained: “The undersigned attorney believes this claim to be meritless because it is well settled that defense counsel’s choice of what motions wil | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. McKendrick
green
1 sentence1988(People v. McKendrick (1985), 138 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Thiele v. Kennedy
green
1 sentence1986(Thiele v. Kennedy (1974), 18 Ill. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McCormick v. Burt
green
1 sentence1986In Thiele, on which the board relies, the court cites McCormick v. Burt (1880), 95 Ill. 263 , an early enunciation of the discretion immunity rule, as authority for the proposition that the only exception to discretion immunity is one for acts based on corrupt or malicious motives. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
The PEOPLE v. Brown
green
1 sentence1975In the instant case the subject matter is the propriety of defendant's criminal trial, the grounds for dismissal, *582 the defendant's attorney's inaction and the consequences thereof — the denial of defendant's right to appeal." 39 Ill.2d 307, 310-11 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.