23 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norskog v. Pfielgreen2 sentences2024The court in Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 70-71 (2001), considered de novo whether the disclosure of mental health information was prohibited by a statutory discovery privilege. 2023For example, Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 71 (2001), concerned “whether disclosure of mental health information is prohibited by a statutory discovery privilege,” a question of law to which de novo review applied. | 3 | 8 |
Niven v. Siqueiragreen2 sentences1997See Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill.2d 357, 368 , 94 Ill.Dec. 60 , 487 N.E.2d 937 (1985). 1997See Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill. 2d 357, 368 (1985). | 3 | 3 |
Dc v. Sagreen2 sentences2017See also D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551, 559-61 (1997) (we review the issue of whether a statutory discovery privilege applies in a given case under a de novo standard of review). -4- ¶ 22 The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. 1998Strong, 278 Ill.App.3d at 764 , 215 Ill.Dec. 421 , 663 N.E.2d 432 ; cf. D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill.2d 551, 559 , 227 Ill.Dec. 550 , 687 N.E.2d 1032 (1997)(applicability of a statutory discovery privilege is a matter of law). | 2 | 3 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen2 sentences2024“Accordingly, unless the underlying issues are meritorious, defendant has suffered no prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise them on appeal.” Easley, 192 Ill. 2d at 329 . ¶ 34 Defendant argues “the discovery violation was a due process violation and *** the trial court’s remedy for the officers’ statutory discovery violation was insufficient to cure the prejudice caused by the violation.” More specifically, defendant contends posttrial counsel should have argued Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), applies rather than Brady. 2024See Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 ; Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards, LLPgreen1 sentence2017Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP, 214 Ill. 2d 417, 430 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Curtisgreen1 sentence1979See People v. Curtis (1977), 48 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Klaine v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services
green
2 sentences2025In that case, the defendant challenged a discovery order on the basis that the information requested was “subject to a statutory discovery privilege,” raising an issue of - 14 - “statutory construction” and, thus, “purely a question of law.” Id. 2017“Where, as here, the defendant challenges an order compelling discovery of information that the defendant believes to be subject to a statutory discovery privilege, the question is one of statutory construction, which is purely a question of law.” Klaine v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 2016 IL 118217 , ¶ 13. | 3 | 2017–2025 |
Golembiewski v. Hallberg Insurance Agency, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017For example, in Golembiewski v. Hallberg Insurance Agency, Inc., 262 Ill. 2017For example, in Golembiewski v. Hallberg Insurance Agency, 262 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Doe v. Township High School District 211
green
2 sentences2016Norskog, 197 Ill. 2d at 71 ; Doe, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 74 . 2016Norskog, 197 Ill. 2d at 71 ; Doe, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 74 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Meh v. Lh
green
2 sentences1998The trial court identified the controlling issue as "whether the common law discovery rule applies to childhood sexual abuse cases arising prior to the 1991 enactment of a statutory discovery rule." In granting defendants’ motions, the trial court concluded that it was bound by our decision in M.E.H. v. L.H. , 283 Ill. 1998The trial court identified the controlling issue as “whether the common law discovery rule applies to childhood sexual abuse cases arising prior to the 1991 enactment of a statutory discovery rule.” In granting defendants’ motions, the trial court concluded that it was bound by our decision in M.E.H. v. L.H., 283 Ill. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Easley
green
1 sentence2024“Accordingly, unless the underlying issues are meritorious, defendant has suffered no prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise them on appeal.” Easley, 192 Ill. 2d at 329 . ¶ 34 Defendant argues “the discovery violation was a due process violation and *** the trial court’s remedy for the officers’ statutory discovery violation was insufficient to cure the prejudice caused by the violation.” More specifically, defendant contends posttrial counsel should have argued Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), applies rather than Brady. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
First Nat. Bank of Lacon v. Strong
green
2 sentences1998Strong, 278 Ill.App.3d at 764 , 215 Ill.Dec. 421 , 663 N.E.2d 432 ; cf. D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill.2d 551, 559 , 227 Ill.Dec. 550 , 687 N.E.2d 1032 (1997)(applicability of a statutory discovery privilege is a matter of law). 1998Strong, 278 Ill.App.3d at 764 , 215 Ill.Dec. 421 , 663 N.E.2d 432 ; cf. D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill.2d 551, 559 , 227 Ill.Dec. 550 , 687 N.E.2d 1032 (1997)(applicability of a statutory discovery privilege is a matter of law). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.