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 1983–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2004When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d at 217 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 61 L. 2004When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d at 217 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 61 L. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Bowensgreen2 sentences2015App. 3d at 1108 , 943 N.E.2d at 1264 ("When, as here, the record clearly shows that plain error did not occur, we will reject it without further analysis."). ¶ 34 Reviewing defendant's claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong, we need not consider whether an error occurred because the evidence against defendant is overwhelming. 2015App. 3d at 1108 , 943 N.E.2d at 1264 (“When, as here, the record clearly shows that plain error did not occur, we will reject it without further analysis.”). ¶ 34 Reviewing defendant’s claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong, we need not consider whether an error occurred because the evidence against defendant is overwhelming. | 2 | 2 |
Cooper v. Chicago Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2010Cooper v. Chicago Transit Authority, 153 Ill. 2010Cooper v. Chicago Transit Authority, 153 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maggettegreen2 sentences2005People v. Maggette , 195 Ill. 2d 336, 353 , 747 N.E.2d 339, 349 (2001) . 2005People v. Maggette , 195 Ill. 2d 336, 353 , 747 N.E.2d 339, 349 (2001) . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pollockgreen2 sentences2025When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could -8- have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ (Emphasis omitted.) [Citations.] The same standard of review applies when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in all criminal cases, regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. [Citations.] Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction where it satisfies p 2004When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d at 217 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 61 L. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Silvagreen1 sentence2026Every time defendant was asked a question he did not wish to answer his declination was specific to that question: “I don’t think I’ll be talking to you about this;” “I’m not even going to speak about that;” “I don’t want even to get involved with that;” “I’m not even comfortable speaking about any of that.” See People v. Silva, 45 Cal. 3d 604, 630 (1988) (finding that defendant’s statement, “I don’t know, I really don’t want to talk about that[,]” was not a request to terminate interrogation). ¶ 61 Further, throughout that line of questioning, defendant is asking questions of Grabowski. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitegreen1 sentence2022People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 134 (because defendant could not show prejudice given - 17 - No. 1-17-2823 strength of evidence, court found “no reason to go further for purposes of *** closely balanced prong of plain error”); People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 34 (“Reviewing defendant's claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong, we need not consider whether an error occurred because the evidence against defendant is overwhelming.”). ¶ 55 For the reasons already given, we do not find the evidence closely balanced. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Scottgreen1 sentence2022People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 134 (because defendant could not show prejudice given - 17 - No. 1-17-2823 strength of evidence, court found “no reason to go further for purposes of *** closely balanced prong of plain error”); People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 34 (“Reviewing defendant's claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong, we need not consider whether an error occurred because the evidence against defendant is overwhelming.”). ¶ 55 For the reasons already given, we do not find the evidence closely balanced. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rossgreen1 sentence2021See People v. Daheya, 2013 IL App (1st) - 18 - No. 1-19-1508 122333, ¶ 61 (quoting People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255, 272 (2008)) (“ ‘the reviewing court does not retry the defendant, and the trier of fact remains responsible for making determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bluegreen1 sentence2020It has also held that the appropriate reviewing standard is abuse of discretion, reasoning that “the trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to determine the prejudicial effect of any remarks.” People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 441 (1993); see also People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 128 (2000) (applying an abuse of discretion standard). | 1 | 1 |
Robidoux v. Oliphantgreen1 sentence2020Defendant contends that the reviewing standard should be abuse of discretion, because a trial court has the discretion “to strike and not consider late-filed evidentiary materials when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Defendant cites Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 347 (2002) (affirming the trial court’s striking of a supplemental expert affidavit that was filed with the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration). ¶ 42 We tend to agree with defendant that at issue is not whether expert discovery remained open when she filed the third affidavit but, rather, whether the trial court | 1 | 1 |
People v. A.S.green1 sentence2020We will reverse a best-interests finding only where it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 1 N.B., 2019 IL 1 Respondent erroneously states that the reviewing standard is abuse of discretion, citing In re M.S., 302 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hudsongreen1 sentence2020It has also held that the appropriate reviewing standard is abuse of discretion, reasoning that “the trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to determine the prejudicial effect of any remarks.” People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 441 (1993); see also People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 128 (2000) (applying an abuse of discretion standard). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2006In Thurow, we held that a court reviewing a claim of harmless error should ask: “ ‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’ ” Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d at 368-69 , quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 144 L. 2006In Thurow, we held that a court reviewing a claim of harmless error should ask: “ ‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’ ” Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d at 368-69 , quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 144 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2004When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 217 , 269 Ill.Dec. 197 , 780 N.E.2d 669 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis omitted); People v. Cooper, 194 Ill.2d 419, 430-31 , 252 Ill.Dec. 458 , 743 N.E.2d 32 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 2004When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 217 , 269 Ill.Dec. 197 , 780 N.E.2d 669 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis omitted); People v. Cooper, 194 Ill.2d 419, 430-31 , 252 Ill.Dec. 458 , 743 N.E.2d 32 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, | 2 | 2002–2004 |
People v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2004When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 217 , 269 Ill.Dec. 197 , 780 N.E.2d 669 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis omitted); People v. Cooper, 194 Ill.2d 419, 430-31 , 252 Ill.Dec. 458 , 743 N.E.2d 32 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 2004When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, the relevant inquiry is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Pollock, 202 Ill.2d at 217 , 269 Ill.Dec. 197 , 780 N.E.2d 669 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis omitted); People v. Cooper, 194 Ill.2d 419, 430-31 , 252 Ill.Dec. 458 , 743 N.E.2d 32 (2000); People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Wilbourn v. Cavalenes
green
2 sentences2011Questions as to the prejudicial effect of remarks in closing statements are within the discretion of the trial court and the results are affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] Even improper arguments will not warrant reversal without a substantial showing of prejudice. *1255 [Citation.] Parties are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. [Citation.] The standard of reviewing a claim of improper argument is whether the argument was of such a character as to have prevented a fair trial. [Citation.] The trial court is in a unique position to gauge the effects of misconduct, ha 2011Questions as to the prejudicial effect of remarks in closing statements are within the discretion of the trial court and the results are affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] Even improper arguments will not warrant reversal without a substantial showing of prejudice. *1255 [Citation.] Parties are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. [Citation.] The standard of reviewing a claim of improper argument is whether the argument was of such a character as to have prevented a fair trial. [Citation.] The trial court is in a unique position to gauge the effects of misconduct, ha | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Thurow
green
2 sentences2006In Thurow , we held that a court reviewing a claim of harmless error should ask: "`Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" Thurow, 203 Ill.2d at 368-69 , 272 Ill.Dec. 185 , 786 N.E.2d 1019 , quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 119 S.Ct. at 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 53 . 2006In Thurow , we held that a court reviewing a claim of harmless error should ask: "`Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" Thurow, 203 Ill.2d at 368-69 , 272 Ill.Dec. 185 , 786 N.E.2d 1019 , quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 119 S.Ct. at 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 53 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Streit
green
2 sentences1994(People v. Streit (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 13 , 566 N.E.2d 1351 .) The standard for reviewing a claim of excessive sentence is whether the trial court abused its discretion. 1994(People v. Streit (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 13 , 566 N.E.2d 1351 .) The standard for reviewing a claim of excessive sentence is whether the trial court abused its discretion. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Perruquet
green
2 sentences1994(People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 154 , 368 N.E.2d 882 .) Here, defendant was found guilty of armed robbery, a Class X felony, for which defendant could have been sentenced to 30 years in prison. (730 ILCS 5/5—8—1 (West 1993).) Defendant maintains that the court considered improper factors and failed to consider proper factors in sentencing him. 1994(People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 154 , 368 N.E.2d 882 .) Here, defendant was found guilty of armed robbery, a Class X felony, for which defendant could have been sentenced to 30 years in prison. (730 ILCS 5/5—8—1 (West 1993).) Defendant maintains that the court considered improper factors and failed to consider proper factors in sentencing him. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Collins
green
1 sentence1992People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Boclair
green
2 sentences1991(People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458 , 544 N.E.2d 715 .) On review, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 1991(People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458 , 544 N.E.2d 715 .) On review, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Dixon
neutral
1 sentence1983(People v. Dixon (1982), 105 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.