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 1908–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Chicago Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2014App. 3d 526, 531 (1992) (quoting In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279 (1989) (finding that the defendant waived a defense that she argued for the first time on appeal in support of affirming the circuit court's decision granting her motion for summary disposition, when the record contained no evidence regarding the defense and the plaintiff would have been 18 1-12-1893 prejudiced if the court were to consider the argument without the chance to develop evidence in the trial court)). ¶ 48 On the other hand, this court has also held that "[t]he rule that a defense not raised in the t 2014App. 3d 526, 531 (1992) (finding that the defendant waived a defense that she argued for the first time on appeal in support of affirming the circuit court’s decision granting her motion for summary disposition, when the record contained no evidence regarding the defense and the plaintiff would have been prejudiced if the court were to consider the argument without the chance to develop evidence in the trial court (quoting In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279 (1989))). ¶ 48 On the other hand, this court has also held that “[t]he rule that a defense not raised in the trial court is | 2 | 2 |
In re Marriage of Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2014App. 3d 526, 531 (1992) (quoting In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279 (1989) (finding that the defendant waived a defense that she argued for the first time on appeal in support of affirming the circuit court's decision granting her motion for summary disposition, when the record contained no evidence regarding the defense and the plaintiff would have been 18 1-12-1893 prejudiced if the court were to consider the argument without the chance to develop evidence in the trial court)). ¶ 48 On the other hand, this court has also held that "[t]he rule that a defense not raised in the t 2014App. 3d 526, 531 (1992) (finding that the defendant waived a defense that she argued for the first time on appeal in support of affirming the circuit court’s decision granting her motion for summary disposition, when the record contained no evidence regarding the defense and the plaintiff would have been prejudiced if the court were to consider the argument without the chance to develop evidence in the trial court (quoting In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279 (1989))). ¶ 48 On the other hand, this court has also held that “[t]he rule that a defense not raised in the trial court is | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wadegreen2 sentences2000See Wade, 131 Ill.2d at 376 , 137 Ill.Dec. 608 , 546 N.E.2d 553 ; see also People v. Davis, 185 Ill.2d 317, 343 , 235 Ill.Dec. 918 , 706 N.E.2d 473 (1998) (stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant's death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding). 2000See Wade, 131 Ill.2d at 376 , 137 Ill.Dec. 608 , 546 N.E.2d 553 ; see also People v. Davis, 185 Ill.2d 317, 343 , 235 Ill.Dec. 918 , 706 N.E.2d 473 (1998) (stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant's death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2000See Wade, 131 Ill.2d at 376 , 137 Ill.Dec. 608 , 546 N.E.2d 553 ; see also People v. Davis, 185 Ill.2d 317, 343 , 235 Ill.Dec. 918 , 706 N.E.2d 473 (1998) (stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant's death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding). 2000See Wade, 131 Ill. 2d at 376; see also People v. Davis, 185 Ill. 2d 317, 343 (1998) (stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant’s death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Enochgreen2 sentences1994App. 3d 345, 354 , 499 N.E.2d 510, 516 (holding that the defendant waived his claim of error regarding a deficient instruction when he failed to object at trial, tender a correct instruction, or mention the error in his post-trial motion); see also People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 ("Both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are required for alleged errors that could have been raised during trial”). 1994App. 3d 345, 354 , 499 N.E.2d 510, 516 (holding that the defendant waived his claim of error regarding a deficient instruction when he failed to object at trial, tender a correct instruction, or mention the error in his post-trial motion); see also People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 ("Both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are required for alleged errors that could have been raised during trial”). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1994App. 3d 345, 354 , 499 N.E.2d 510, 516 (holding that the defendant waived his claim of error regarding a deficient instruction when he failed to object at trial, tender a correct instruction, or mention the error in his post-trial motion); see also People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 ("Both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are required for alleged errors that could have been raised during trial”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Navarroligreen1 sentence1988His right to a fair trial is unimpaired. " (Emphasis added.) Navarroli, 121 Ill.2d at 525-27, 529 . • 14 In the case at bar, in reliance on the agents' promise to the defendant either to inform the State's Attorney of his cooperation, as the agents testified at trial, or to release and not prosecute him for his drug delivery for which the agents had just arrested the defendant, as the defendant testified at trial, it is uncontradicted (1) that the agents questioned the defendant about the offenses for which he had just been arrested; (2) that the agents induced the defendant to disclose inform | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2008Adcock, 164 Ill. 2d at 61 . 2008Adcock, 164 Ill. 2d at 61 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Haubner v. Abercrombie & Kent International, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Haubner, 351 Ill. 2006Haubner, 351 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Christy
green
2 sentences1997The Lewis decision was premised on People v. Christy, 139 Ill. 2d 172 (1990). 1997The Lewis decision was premised on People v. Christy , 139 Ill. 2d 172 (1990). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023Johnson, 2021 IL App (1st) 152310, ¶ 27 . ¶ 30 We find likewise to the court in Johnson, 2021 IL App (1st) 152310, ¶ 25 . 2023Johnson, 2021 IL App (1st) 152310, ¶ 27 . ¶ 30 We find likewise to the court in Johnson, 2021 IL App (1st) 152310, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Miranda
green
1 sentence2021Miranda, 329 Ill. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Whitfield
green
2 sentences2020The State contended the defendant waived this claim because he “ ‘was aware from the date of his guilty plea that the judge had not included an admonition regarding the period of MSR’ and never sought to withdraw his guilty plea or directly appeal his conviction.” Id. at 187 . 2020The supreme disagreed, finding it “incongruous” to conclude the defendant defaulted his postconviction claim because he did not object to the trial court’s failure to admonish him, particularly where he alleged that he did not learn of the MSR term until prison, and therefore, “could not have raised the error in a motion to withdraw his plea or a direct appeal.” Id. at 188 . ¶ 23 Our review of Stewart, Hampton, and Whitfield, as discussed above, shows that in those cases the supreme court did not reject out-of-hand the defendants’ postconviction allegations that their guilty pleas were involun | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Billops
green
1 sentence2003Noting that the appellate court previously had reviewed a double jeopardy claim as plain error following a trial, the Billops court reasoned that such review was similarly appropriate in a guilty plea case because “the underlying error is the same.” Billops, 125 Ill. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Kubat
green
2 sentences1987People v. Kubat (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 424, 436 ; People v. Jones (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 19, 24 . 1987People v. Kubat (1986), 114 Ill.2d 424, 436 ; People v. Jones (1985), 109 Ill.2d 19, 24 . *371 In his fourth category of claims, Silagy says his due process rights were violated because he was not advised that statements to the examining psychiatrists could be used against him in the guilt or sentencing phase of the trial. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences1987People v. Kubat (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 424, 436 ; People v. Jones (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 19, 24 . 1987People v. Kubat (1986), 114 Ill.2d 424, 436 ; People v. Jones (1985), 109 Ill.2d 19, 24 . *371 In his fourth category of claims, Silagy says his due process rights were violated because he was not advised that statements to the examining psychiatrists could be used against him in the guilt or sentencing phase of the trial. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1983The State’s final response to defendant’s argument concerning the burden of disproving all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is that the defendant waived this standard of proof by failing to tender an instruction regarding the State’s burden, citing People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 437 , 447 N.E.2d 247 , and People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564 , 404 N.E.2d 233 . 1983The State’s final response to defendant’s argument concerning the burden of disproving all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is that the defendant waived this standard of proof by failing to tender an instruction regarding the State’s burden, citing People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 437 , 447 N.E.2d 247 , and People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564 , 404 N.E.2d 233 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Kubat
green
2 sentences1983The State’s final response to defendant’s argument concerning the burden of disproving all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is that the defendant waived this standard of proof by failing to tender an instruction regarding the State’s burden, citing People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 437 , 447 N.E.2d 247 , and People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564 , 404 N.E.2d 233 . 1983The State’s final response to defendant’s argument concerning the burden of disproving all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is that the defendant waived this standard of proof by failing to tender an instruction regarding the State’s burden, citing People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 437 , 447 N.E.2d 247 , and People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564 , 404 N.E.2d 233 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Powell v. Texas
green
1 sentence1977Ed. 2d 1317 , 88 S. Ct. 2145 , it was held that a defendant waived his privilege against self-incrimination by raising the issue of insanity and presenting evidence as to his mental incompetency through his own and his expert’s testimony. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
The People v. Slaughter
neutral
1 sentence1966The People v. Slaughter, 29 Ill2d 384, 389, 194 NE2d 193 (1963); The People v. Washington, 23 Ill2d 546, 548, 179 NE2d 635 (1962); People v. Lacey, 49 Ill App2d 301, 305, 200 NE2d 11 (1964). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
The People v. Washington
green
1 sentence1966The People v. Slaughter, 29 Ill2d 384, 389, 194 NE2d 193 (1963); The People v. Washington, 23 Ill2d 546, 548, 179 NE2d 635 (1962); People v. Lacey, 49 Ill App2d 301, 305, 200 NE2d 11 (1964). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
People v. Lacey
green
1 sentence1966The People v. Slaughter, 29 Ill2d 384, 389, 194 NE2d 193 (1963); The People v. Washington, 23 Ill2d 546, 548, 179 NE2d 635 (1962); People v. Lacey, 49 Ill App2d 301, 305, 200 NE2d 11 (1964). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
The People v. Crooks
neutral
1 sentence1944(People v. Childers, 386 Ill. 312 ; People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354 ; People v. Crooks, 326 Ill. 266 ; People v. Pennington, 267 Ill. 45 .) In the absence of a showing in a bill of exceptions that either the State’s Attorney or defendant requested an examination of witnesses, the presumption prevails that the defendant waived a hearing on the subject of mitigation. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
The People v. Childers
green
1 sentence1944(People v. Childers, 386 Ill. 312 ; People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354 ; People v. Crooks, 326 Ill. 266 ; People v. Pennington, 267 Ill. 45 .) In the absence of a showing in a bill of exceptions that either the State’s Attorney or defendant requested an examination of witnesses, the presumption prevails that the defendant waived a hearing on the subject of mitigation. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
The People v. Throop
green
2 sentences1944(People v. Childers, 386 Ill. 312 ; People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354 ; People v. Crooks, 326 Ill. 266 ; People v. Pennington, 267 Ill. 45 .) In the absence of a showing in a bill of exceptions that either the State’s Attorney or defendant requested an examination of witnesses, the presumption prevails that the defendant waived a hearing on the subject of mitigation. 1944(People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354 .) We are of the opinion, however, that the reason for this presumption fails where the court acts under a misapprehension of the applicable statute and imposes sentence for an indeterminate period instead of for a definite term of imprisonment. , If the trial judge lacked discretion or power in determining the extent of the punishment, as he apparently assumed, there could have been no necessity to hear evidence either in mitigation or in aggravation of the offense. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
People v. Pennington
neutral
1 sentence1944(People v. Childers, 386 Ill. 312 ; People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354 ; People v. Crooks, 326 Ill. 266 ; People v. Pennington, 267 Ill. 45 .) In the absence of a showing in a bill of exceptions that either the State’s Attorney or defendant requested an examination of witnesses, the presumption prevails that the defendant waived a hearing on the subject of mitigation. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Labadie v. Hewitt
neutral
1 sentence1908Labadie v. Hewitt, 85 Ill. 341 ; Bird v. Bird, 218 id. 158; Gilmore v. Sapp, 100 id. 297; Ring v. Lawless, 190 id. 520. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.