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.
18 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 1 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 Ex Rel. Birkett v. Konetskigreen2 sentences2019Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 212 (2009)), this court recently reaffirmed in a unanimous decision that our supervisory authority over Illinois’s judicial system is “unlimited in extent and hampered by no specific rules” (Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., 2018 IL 123025, ¶ 16 ). 2019Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 212 (2009)), this court recently reaffirmed in a unanimous decision that our supervisory authority over Illinois’s judicial system is “unlimited in extent and hampered by no specific rules” (Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., 2018 IL 123025, ¶ 16 ). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Filangreen2 sentences2012See Filan, *598 216 Ill.2d at 664 , 297 Ill.Dec. 471 , 837 N.E.2d at 930 . ¶ 14 While plaintiff did not state the legal basis for his wrongful-demolition count in his complaint or in his briefs, he asserts Harvest Church of Our Lord involved the same situation as this case. 2012See Filan, *598 216 Ill.2d at 664 , 297 Ill.Dec. 471 , 837 N.E.2d at 930 . ¶ 14 While plaintiff did not state the legal basis for his wrongful-demolition count in his complaint or in his briefs, he asserts Harvest Church of Our Lord involved the same situation as this case. | 2 | 2 |
City of Chicago v. PROLOGISgreen1 sentence2025City of Chicago v. ProLogis, 236 Ill. 2d 69, 77 (2010); see St. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cartwrightgreen1 sentence2014Defendant does not contend that this case presents an exception, so we confine our analysis to the fourth amendment. -4- state law may be an unreasonable one under that amendment, so may a search not expressly authorized by state law be justified as a constitutionally reasonable one.’ ” (quoting Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 61 (1967))); see also United States v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The existence of a police policy, city ordinance, or state law alone does not render a particular search or seizure reasonable or otherwise immune from scrutiny under the Fourth Ame | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Californiagreen1 sentence2014Defendant does not contend that this case presents an exception, so we confine our analysis to the fourth amendment. -4- state law may be an unreasonable one under that amendment, so may a search not expressly authorized by state law be justified as a constitutionally reasonable one.’ ” (quoting Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 61 (1967))); see also United States v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The existence of a police policy, city ordinance, or state law alone does not render a particular search or seizure reasonable or otherwise immune from scrutiny under the Fourth Ame | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garvingreen1 sentence2014An as-applied challenge to a search or seizure authorized by statute is distinguishable in this respect from a facial challenge to the statute, which requires a defendant to “fulfill the difficult task of establishing the statute’s invalidity under any set of facts.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Garvin, 219 Ill. 2d 104, 117 (2006). ¶ 13 At the hearing on a defendant’s motion to suppress, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search or seizure was unconstitutional and that the evidence obtained as a result should be suppressed. | 1 | 1 |
Madden v. Cronsongreen1 sentence2013“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, ‘the performance of official duties by a public officer where no exercise of discretion on his part is involved.’ ” Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133 (1997) (quoting Madden v. Cronson, 114 Ill. 2d 504, 514 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Noyola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicagogreen1 sentence2013“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, ‘the performance of official duties by a public officer where no exercise of discretion on his part is involved.’ ” Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133 (1997) (quoting Madden v. Cronson, 114 Ill. 2d 504, 514 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 212 (2009)), this court recently reaffirmed in a unanimous decision that our supervisory authority over Illinois’s judicial system is “unlimited in extent and hampered by no specific rules” (Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., 2018 IL 123025, ¶ 16 ). 2019Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 212 (2009)), this court recently reaffirmed in a unanimous decision that our supervisory authority over Illinois’s judicial system is “unlimited in extent and hampered by no specific rules” (Vasquez Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., 2018 IL 123025, ¶ 16 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Roper v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2016The constitutional difference arises from a juvenile’s lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the less fixed nature of the juvenile’s character. [Citations.] If a district court believes a case presents an exception to this generally applicable rule, the district court should make findings discussing why the general rule does not apply. [Citations.] In making such findings, the district court must go beyond a mere recitation of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court has cautioned cannot overwhelm the analysis in the context of ju 2016The constitutional difference arises from a juvenile’s lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the less fixed nature of the juvenile’s character. [Citations.] - 12 - No. 1-12-1732 If a district court believes a case presents an exception to this generally applicable rule, the district court should make findings discussing why the general rule does not apply. [Citations.] In making such findings, the district court must go beyond a mere recitation of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court has cautioned cannot overwhelm the analysis | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2016The constitutional difference arises from a juvenile’s lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the less fixed nature of the juvenile’s character. [Citations.] If a district court believes a case presents an exception to this generally applicable rule, the district court should make findings discussing why the general rule does not apply. [Citations.] In making such findings, the district court must go beyond a mere recitation of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court has cautioned cannot overwhelm the analysis in the context of ju 2016The constitutional difference arises from a juvenile’s lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the less fixed nature of the juvenile’s character. [Citations.] - 12 - No. 1-12-1732 If a district court believes a case presents an exception to this generally applicable rule, the district court should make findings discussing why the general rule does not apply. [Citations.] In making such findings, the district court must go beyond a mere recitation of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court has cautioned cannot overwhelm the analysis | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Filos
green
2 sentences2000In support of her contention, plaintiff has cited Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Filos , 285 Ill. 2000In support of her contention, plaintiff has cited Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Filos, 285 Ill. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Wolff v. McDonnell
green
2 sentences1992Ed. 2d 935, 951 , 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2975 .)” This case presents no challenge to the fairness of these DOC administrative proceedings, nor does Williams argue that he did not receive the process he was due before his good time was revoked. 1992There must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application. ( Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), 418 U.S. 539, 556 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 951 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975 .)" This case presents no challenge to the fairness of these DOC administrative proceedings, nor does Williams argue that he did not receive the process he was due before his good time was revoked. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
green
1 sentence2025Arkansas Game, 568 U.S. at 31 . ¶ 48 This case presents a claim for inverse condemnation, which arises when a property owner seeks compensation for a taking of private property but no condemnation proceeding has been initiated. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Butorac
green
1 sentence2014Defendant does not contend that this case presents an exception, so we confine our analysis to the fourth amendment. -5- 2013 IL App (2d) 110953 ¶ 12 Before reaching the merits of defendant’s argument, it is important to clearly outline the standards guiding our review, especially in light of the unusual procedural history of this case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Diggins
green
1 sentence2011The State informed this court at oral argument that it was not advancing any forfeiture argument since Diggins had not been decided when defendant filed his petition for leave to appeal and because defendant’s assertion that the gun was enclosed in a case presents a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 This paragraph provides: “(c) This Section does not apply to or affect the transportation or possession of weapons that: (i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or (ii) are not immediately accessible; or (iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Darnell J. v. People
green
1 sentence1991This precise issue was recently addressed by our appellate court in the virtually identical case of In re Darnell J. (1990), 196 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In Re Estate of Luther
neutral
1 sentence1990The general rule is that denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable (In re Estate of Luther (1972), 3 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1976We believe that the evidence against defendant was so overwhelming that the admission of the written statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967).) Although in People v. Henenberg, 55 Ill.2d 5 , 302 N.E.2d 27 (1973), the court declined to decide the question whether the admission of a confession could ever be harmless error, we believe that the case presents no bar to our so holding in light of the overwhelming evidence of the instant defendant's guilt. 1976Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967).) Although in People v. Henenberg, 55 Ill. 2d 5 , 302 N.E.2d 27 (1973), the court declined to decide the question whether the admission of a confession could ever be harmless error, we believe that the case presents no bar to our so holding in light of the overwhelming evidence of the instant defendant’s guilt. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Henenberg
green
2 sentences1976Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967).) Although in People v. Henenberg, 55 Ill. 2d 5 , 302 N.E.2d 27 (1973), the court declined to decide the question whether the admission of a confession could ever be harmless error, we believe that the case presents no bar to our so holding in light of the overwhelming evidence of the instant defendant’s guilt. 1976Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967).) Although in People v. Henenberg, 55 Ill. 2d 5 , 302 N.E.2d 27 (1973), the court declined to decide the question whether the admission of a confession could ever be harmless error, we believe that the case presents no bar to our so holding in light of the overwhelming evidence of the instant defendant’s guilt. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.