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.
24 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 3 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. Hallgreen2 sentences2011Hall, 195 Ill. 2d at 21 (de novo review is appropriate when the trial court applies “a broadly applicable rule”). ¶ 109 B. 2002Some deference was due to the trial court’s rulings because “the trial court exercised discretion ***, i.e., the court based these rulings on the specific circumstances of this case and not on a broadly applicable rule.” Hall, 195 Ill. 2d at 21 . | 8 | 11 |
People v. Caffeygreen2 sentences2021People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 89 (2001) (where court bases ruling on the specific circumstances of case and not on a broadly applicable rule, abuse-of-discretion review applies). ¶ 97 The necessity defense is codified in section 7-13 of the Criminal Code of 2012, which states: “Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his [or her] 2020See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 89 (2001) (declining to invoke the exception to the general rule of deference to the trial court where the ruling in question was based “on the specific circumstances of this case and not on a broadly applicable rule”). | 4 | 10 |
People v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012See People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 356, 373 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 (2010) (citing People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000)). 2012See People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 356, 373 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 (2010) (citing People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2001See People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2000); People v. Williams, 181 Ill. 2d 297, 313 (1998). 2001See People v. Hall , 195 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2000); People v. Williams , 181 Ill. 2d 297, 313 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Edward Williamsgreen2 sentences2000See generally United States v. Williams, 81 F.3d 1434, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996); People v. Drum, 307 Ill. 2000See generally United States v. Williams , 81 F.3d 1434, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996); People v. Drum , 307 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Reidgreen2 sentences2017Here, the trial court based its ruling on the circumstances of the case and therefore, following Caffey, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court’s decision to admit the testimony of Lorena should be reviewed de novo, and instead, we will apply the abuse of discretion standard. ¶ 51 “Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the trial court has abused that discretion.” People v. Reid, 179 Ill. 2d 297 , 313 18 1-12-2640 (1997); Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d at 89 . 2017The trial court must consider a number of circumstances that bear on that issue, including questions of reliability and prejudice. [Citation.] In this case, the trial court exercised discretion in making these evidentiary rulings, i.e., the court based these rulings on the specific circumstances of this case and not on a broadly applicable rule.” Id. at 89-90 . - 10 - Here, the trial court based its ruling on the circumstances of the case, and therefore, following Caffey, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court’s decision to admit the testimony of Lorena should be reviewed de novo, | 1 | 2 |
People v. Cookgreen1 sentence2021See People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 29 . | 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. Drum
green
2 sentences2000See generally United States v. Williams, 81 F.3d 1434, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996); People v. Drum, 307 Ill. 2000See generally United States v. Williams , 81 F.3d 1434, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996); People v. Drum , 307 Ill. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
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.