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.
25 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2025 6 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. Shinaulgreen2 sentences2025“Absent express language in the statute providing an exception, we will not depart from the plain language and read into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.” People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 17 . ¶ 25 Seeking to evade the plain language of the statute, the State asserts that, once defendant was convicted in case No. 21-CF-126, time he spent in custody was attributable to that offense. 2025As such, the statute provides no basis for excluding such time as the State advocates. ‘Absent express language in the statute providing an exception, we will not depart from the plain language and read into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.’ People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 17 .” Id. ¶ 24. | 5 | 8 |
The PEOPLE v. Wilbourngreen2 sentences2016Even the complete lack of a hearing on factors in aggravation and mitigation does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because, as our supreme court has often stated, “ ‘the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.’ ” People v. Scott, 49 Ill. 2d 231, 234 (1971) (quoting People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill. 2d 187, 190 (1971)). ¶ 38 The error alleged here by defendant would not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because any such error is one created solely by statute. 2016Even the complete lack of a hearing on factors in aggravation and mitigation does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because, as our supreme court has often stated, “ ‘the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.’ ” People v. Scott, 49 Ill. 2d 231, 234 (1971) (quoting People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill. 2d 187, 190 (1971)). ¶ 38 The error alleged here by defendant would not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because any such error is one created solely by statute. | 3 | 5 |
The PEOPLE v. Scottgreen2 sentences2016Even the complete lack of a hearing on factors in aggravation and mitigation does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because, as our supreme court has often stated, “ ‘the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.’ ” People v. Scott, 49 Ill. 2d 231, 234 (1971) (quoting People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill. 2d 187, 190 (1971)). ¶ 38 The error alleged here by defendant would not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because any such error is one created solely by statute. 2016Even the complete lack of a hearing on factors in aggravation and mitigation does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because, as our supreme court has often stated, “ ‘the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.’ ” People v. Scott, 49 Ill. 2d 231, 234 (1971) (quoting People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill. 2d 187, 190 (1971)). ¶ 38 The error alleged here by defendant would not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation because any such error is one created solely by statute. | 3 | 3 |
Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurancegreen2 sentences2021See Schlutz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391, 408 (2010) (“A court may not add provisions that are not found in a statute, nor may it depart from a statute’s plain language by reading into the law exceptions, limitations, or 4 On May 14, 2019, the circuit court stated that defendant had been in custody for 103 days; however, the next day, on May 15, 2019, the court stated the total days in custody, excluding delay attributable to defendant, was 101 days. 10 conditions that the legislature did not express.”); see also People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 17 (“Absent express la 2021See Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391, 408 (2010) (“A court may not add provisions that are not found in a statute, nor may it depart from a statute’s plain language by reading into the law exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.”); People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 17 (“Absent express language in the statute providing an exception, we will not depart from the plain language and read into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.”). ¶ 31 Moreover, if we construed subsection (c) as de | 2 | 2 |
The PEOPLE v. Wadegreen2 sentences1972It has also held, in People v. Wade (1970), 47 Ill.2d 38 , 264 N.E.2d 207, at 209 , that “the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation does not stem from constitutional command nor confer constitutional rights”. 1972It has also held, in People v. Wade (1970), 47 Ill.2d 38 , 264 N.E.2d 207, at 209 , that “the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation does not stem from constitutional command nor confer constitutional rights”. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Smollettgreen1 sentence2025See People v. Smollett, 2024 IL 130431, ¶ 22 (“A reviewing court considers a [circuit] court’s ultimate ruling on a motion to dismiss charges under an abuse-of-discretion standard, but where the issues present purely legal questions, the standard -5- of review is de novo.”). ¶ 20 To resolve the issue presented, we begin with a review of the relevant statute providing immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Barragan v. Casco Design Corp.green2 sentences2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court 2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evanston Insurance Company v. Riseborough
green
2 sentences2018Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 15 . 2017Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 15 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Ruffing v. Glissendorf
green
2 sentences2003In re Estate of King , 91 Ill. 2003In re Estate of King, 91 Ill. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
The People v. FUCA (THOMAS)
green
2 sentences1971“Relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is limited to those errors which are of a constitutional magnitude and, as we have held, the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.” People v. Wilbourn (1971), 48 Ill.2d 187, 190 ; accord, People v. Wade (1970), 47 Ill.2d 38, 41 ; People v. Burton (1970), 46 Ill.2d 135, 142 ; People v. Fuca (1969), 43 Ill.2d 182, 185 . 1970As was pointed out in People v. Fuca, 43 Ill.2d 182, 185 , in response to a comparable claim, the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation does not stem from constitutional command nor confer constitutional rights. | 2 | 1970–1971 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2025Without citation of authority, it continues, “That time is not attributable to the other offenses, even if a pretrial detention order is in effect.” We note that section 110-6.1(i) does not speak in terms - 11 - 2025 IL App (2d) 250003 of attributing time spent in custody to various offenses. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Torres
green
1 sentence2025As our supreme court has stated, “The best indicator of what the legislature intended in enacting a statute is simply the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms used by the legislature in the statute itself.” People v. Torres, 2024 IL 129289, ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Epsteen
green
1 sentence2024“A statute providing for a claim against an estate within a prescribed period is a grant of jurisdiction, not a general statute of limitations.” Epsteen, 339 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Castillo
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, we will not depart from the plain language of the statute to add provisions that are not found in the statute. ¶ 27 Additionally, defendant, with reliance on People v. Castillo, 372 Ill. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
1010 Lake Shore Association v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
green
2 sentences2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court 2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms
green
2 sentences2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court 2017First, for reasons explained above, our interpretation accords with this court's rule that "[e]ven when there is an apparent conflict between statutes, they must be construed in harmony if reasonably possible." 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. , 2015 IL 118372 , ¶ 37, 398 Ill.Dec. 95 , 43 N.E.3d 1005 (citing Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Ill. 2d 450 , 459, 269 Ill.Dec. 464 , 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002) ); see also Barragan v. Casco Design Corp. 216 Ill. 2d 435 , 441-42, 297 Ill.Dec. 236 , 837 N.E.2d 16 (2005) ("Where two statutes are allegedly in conflict, a court | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re MA
neutral
1 sentence1994In support, the State cited In re M.A. (1985), 132 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Sprinkle
green
1 sentence1974The facts of this particularly brutal crime are adequately stated in the appellate opinion ( 4 Ill. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
The PEOPLE v. Sluder
green
2 sentences1973(People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill.2d 187, 190 , 268 N.E.2d 418 .) Contentions identical to those urged here were determined by the Supreme Court in People v. Sluder, 40 Ill.2d 559, 561 , 240 N.E.2d 666 , in the following language: “The dominant issue raised by the defendant is the propriety of the sentence imposed upon him which, he contends, was based upon serious crimes said to have been committed by him while he was on probation, rather than the offense to which he had pleaded guilty # * *. 1973(People v. Wilbourn, 48 Ill.2d 187, 190 , 268 N.E.2d 418 .) Contentions identical to those urged here were determined by the Supreme Court in People v. Sluder, 40 Ill.2d 559, 561 , 240 N.E.2d 666 , in the following language: “The dominant issue raised by the defendant is the propriety of the sentence imposed upon him which, he contends, was based upon serious crimes said to have been committed by him while he was on probation, rather than the offense to which he had pleaded guilty # * *. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
The PEOPLE v. Burton
green
1 sentence1971“Relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is limited to those errors which are of a constitutional magnitude and, as we have held, the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation *** does not confer any constitutional rights.” People v. Wilbourn (1971), 48 Ill.2d 187, 190 ; accord, People v. Wade (1970), 47 Ill.2d 38, 41 ; People v. Burton (1970), 46 Ill.2d 135, 142 ; People v. Fuca (1969), 43 Ill.2d 182, 185 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
The PEOPLE v. Orndoff
green
1 sentence1969(People v. Orndoff, 39 Ill.2d 96 .) It is our opinion that the statute providing for a hearing in aggravation and mitigation (Ill. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
The People v. Sims
green
1 sentence1950In People v. Sims, 382 Ill. 472 , we upheld the constitutionality of the act in question and held that the procedure thereunder is not a criminal proceeding and that the statute in operation is not unlike the statute providing for an inquiry into the sanity of one charged with crime before trial on the indictment. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
The People v. Redlich
green
1 sentence1950(See People v. Redlich, 402 Ill. 270 .) That act (Ill. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.