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 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Edward Hospitalgreen2 sentences2015For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion [citation], as is his or her decision to limit discovery [citation], [or to] impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)) ***.” (Emphases added.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 356-57 (2004). ¶ 51 In the instant case, the sanction imposed by the trial court is expressly included in Rule 415(g)’s grant of discretion, was imposed after a failure to disclose the information for more than four years, and was partially explained 2015For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion [citation], as is his or her decision to limit discovery [citation], [or to] impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), ***.” (Emphases added.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 356-57 (2004). ¶ 51 In the instant case, the sanction imposed by the trial court is expressly included in Rule 415(g)’s grant of discretion, was imposed after a failure to disclose the information for more than four years, and was partially explaine | 3 | 4 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences2023Therefore, the exclusion of certain testimony as a sanction for a discovery violation is disfavored, “and is appropriate in only the most extreme situations.” Scott, 339 Ill. 2006People v. Scott, 339 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
In Re DTgreen2 sentences2015For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion [citation], as is his or her decision to limit discovery [citation], [or to] impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)) ***.” (Emphases added.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 356-57 (2004). ¶ 51 In the instant case, the sanction imposed by the trial court is expressly included in Rule 415(g)’s grant of discretion, was imposed after a failure to disclose the information for more than four years, and was partially explained 2015For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion [citation], as is his or her decision to limit discovery [citation], [or to] impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), ***.” (Emphases added.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 356-57 (2004). ¶ 51 In the instant case, the sanction imposed by the trial court is expressly included in Rule 415(g)’s grant of discretion, was imposed after a failure to disclose the information for more than four years, and was partially explaine | 2 | 2 |
People v. Leongreen2 sentences2008One of the possible sanctions for a discovery violation where the defendant is denied a full opportunity to prepare his or her defense is the granting of a new trial (134 Ill. 2d R. 415(g); People v. Leon, 306 Ill. 2008One of the possible sanctions for a discovery violation where the defendant is denied a full opportunity to prepare his or her defense is the granting of a new trial (134 Ill. 2d R. 415(g); People v. Leon, 306 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences2026People v. White, 257 Ill. 2003People v. White, 257 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2004For example, a trial judge's decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion ( Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill.2d 504, 521 , 215 Ill.Dec. 98 , 662 N.E.2d 1238 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery ( People v. Williams, 209 Ill.2d 227, 234 , 282 Ill.Dec. 824 , 807 N.E.2d 448 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation ( Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill.2d 100, 110-11 , 282 Ill.Dec. 348 , 806 N.E.2d 645 (2004)), disqualify counsel ( People v. Ortega, 209 Ill.2d 354, 360 , 283 Ill.Dec. 530 , 808 N.E.2d 496 (2004)), accept or reject a ne 2004For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504, 521 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery (People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 234 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), disqualify counsel (People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 360 (2004)), accept or reject a negotiated plea (People v. Henderson, 211 Ill. 2d 90, 103 (2004)), and deny a forum non conveniens motion (Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ortegagreen2 sentences2004For example, a trial judge's decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion ( Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill.2d 504, 521 , 215 Ill.Dec. 98 , 662 N.E.2d 1238 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery ( People v. Williams, 209 Ill.2d 227, 234 , 282 Ill.Dec. 824 , 807 N.E.2d 448 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation ( Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill.2d 100, 110-11 , 282 Ill.Dec. 348 , 806 N.E.2d 645 (2004)), disqualify counsel ( People v. Ortega, 209 Ill.2d 354, 360 , 283 Ill.Dec. 530 , 808 N.E.2d 496 (2004)), accept or reject a ne 2004For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504, 521 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery (People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 234 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), disqualify counsel (People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 360 (2004)), accept or reject a negotiated plea (People v. Henderson, 211 Ill. 2d 90, 103 (2004)), and deny a forum non conveniens motion (Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2004For example, a trial judge's decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion ( Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill.2d 504, 521 , 215 Ill.Dec. 98 , 662 N.E.2d 1238 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery ( People v. Williams, 209 Ill.2d 227, 234 , 282 Ill.Dec. 824 , 807 N.E.2d 448 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation ( Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill.2d 100, 110-11 , 282 Ill.Dec. 348 , 806 N.E.2d 645 (2004)), disqualify counsel ( People v. Ortega, 209 Ill.2d 354, 360 , 283 Ill.Dec. 530 , 808 N.E.2d 496 (2004)), accept or reject a ne 2004For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504, 521 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery (People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 234 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), disqualify counsel (People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 360 (2004)), accept or reject a negotiated plea (People v. Henderson, 211 Ill. 2d 90, 103 (2004)), and deny a forum non conveniens motion (Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. | 1 | 2 |
Swick v. Liautaudgreen2 sentences2004For example, a trial judge's decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion ( Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill.2d 504, 521 , 215 Ill.Dec. 98 , 662 N.E.2d 1238 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery ( People v. Williams, 209 Ill.2d 227, 234 , 282 Ill.Dec. 824 , 807 N.E.2d 448 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation ( Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill.2d 100, 110-11 , 282 Ill.Dec. 348 , 806 N.E.2d 645 (2004)), disqualify counsel ( People v. Ortega, 209 Ill.2d 354, 360 , 283 Ill.Dec. 530 , 808 N.E.2d 496 (2004)), accept or reject a ne 2004For example, a trial judge’s decision whether to allow or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504, 521 (1996)), as is his or her decision to limit discovery (People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 234 (2004)), impose a sanction for a discovery violation (Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110-11 (2004)), disqualify counsel (People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 360 (2004)), accept or reject a negotiated plea (People v. Henderson, 211 Ill. 2d 90, 103 (2004)), and deny a forum non conveniens motion (Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. | 1 | 2 |
Dawdy v. Union Pacific RR Co.green2 sentences2004Co., 207 Ill.2d 167, 177 , 278 Ill.Dec. 92 , 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003)). 2004Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2003)). | 1 | 2 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen1 sentence2013A discovery violation may be analyzed as either a due process violation under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988), or under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(g)(i) (eff. | 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. Koutsakis
green
2 sentences2018On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion and concluded "the trial court properly fashioned an appropriate sanction which was limited and proportionate to the discovery violation." Id. ¶ 57 We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on destruction of evidence. "[A] trial court may properly fashion a sanction for a discovery violation when it is proportionate to the magnitude of the violation. [Citation.] The trial court is in the best position to determine an appropriate sanction based upon the effect the discovery viola 2018On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion and concluded "the trial court properly fashioned an appropriate sanction which was limited and proportionate to the discovery violation." Id. ¶ 57 We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on destruction of evidence. "[A] trial court may properly fashion a sanction for a discovery violation when it is proportionate to the magnitude of the violation. [Citation.] The trial court is in the best position to determine an appropriate sanction based upon the effect the discovery viola | 5 | 2002–2022 |
People v. Patel
green
2 sentences2021Id. ¶ 24 The State characterizes the rescission as a sanction for a discovery violation. 2020Id. ¶ 24 The State characterizes the rescission as a sanction for a discovery violation. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Copeland v. Stebco Products Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Copeland v. Stebco Products Corp., 316 Ill. 2002Copeland v. Stebco Products Corp. , 316 Ill. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Taylor v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1995In support of our holding that trial courts should always consider personal sanctions under Rule 415(g)(ii) against attorneys who willfully violate discovery orders in criminal cases, we note the views expressed by Justice Brennan in his dissent from the Court's decision in Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 , approving the exclusion of a defendant's alibi witnesses as a sanction for a discovery violation: "In the absence of any evidence that a defendant played any part in an attorney's willful discovery violation, directly sanctioning the attorney is not 1995Ed. 2d 798 , 108 S. Ct. 646 , approving the exclusion of a defendant’s alibi witnesses as a sanction for a discovery violation: "In the absence of any evidence that a defendant played any part in an attorney’s willful discovery violation, directly sanctioning the attorney is not only fairer but more effective in deterring violations than excluding defense evidence. [Citation.] The threat of disciplinary proceedings, fines, or imprisonment will likely influence attorney behavior to a far greater extent than the rather indirect penalty threatened by evidentiary exclusion. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2020The trial court noted, Parkman cannot “just lay in the weed” and bring up whatever he wants with no opportunity for the State to rebut. ¶ 54 “A trial court may properly fashion a sanction for a discovery violation when it is proportionate to the magnitude of the violation.” People v. Cunningham, 2018 IL App (1st) 153367 , ¶ 57. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Turner
green
2 sentences2008The parties cite People v. Turner, 367 Ill.App.3d 490, 499 , 305 Ill.Dec. 229 , 854 N.E.2d 1139 (2006), to support their assertion that we are reviewing for abuse of discretion the trial court's decision to deny a sanction for a discovery violation. 2008The parties cite People v. Turner, 367 Ill.App.3d 490, 499 , 305 Ill.Dec. 229 , 854 N.E.2d 1139 (2006), to support their assertion that we are reviewing for abuse of discretion the trial court's decision to deny a sanction for a discovery violation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
green
1 sentence1995In support of our holding that trial courts should always consider personal sanctions under Rule 415(g)(ii) against attorneys who willfully violate discovery orders in criminal cases, we note the views expressed by Justice Brennan in his dissent from the Court's decision in Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 , approving the exclusion of a defendant's alibi witnesses as a sanction for a discovery violation: "In the absence of any evidence that a defendant played any part in an attorney's willful discovery violation, directly sanctioning the attorney is not | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dyduch v. Crystal Green Corp.
green
1 sentence1994(Dyduch v. Crystal Green Corp. (1991), 221 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People Ex Rel. General Motors Corp. v. Bua
green
2 sentences1994General Motors Corp. v. Bua (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 180, 197 , 226 N.E.2d 6, 16 .) The sanctions which may be imposed under Rule 219(c) are: "such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Bua, 37 Ill. 2d at 196 , 226 N.E.2d at 16 .) However, a court is not limited to only those sanctions enumerated in Rule 219(c) but may enter any order which is just, provided the purpose of a sanction for a di 1994General Motors Corp. v. Bua (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 180, 197 , 226 N.E.2d 6, 16 .) The sanctions which may be imposed under Rule 219(c) are: "such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Bua, 37 Ill. 2d at 196 , 226 N.E.2d at 16 .) However, a court is not limited to only those sanctions enumerated in Rule 219(c) but may enter any order which is just, provided the purpose of a sanction for a di | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence1993(See People v. Brown (1982), 106 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1980(People v. Anderson (1980), 80 Ill. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.