18 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2025 5 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. Cosbygreen2 sentences2014See People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271 (2008); see also People v. Robinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102476, ¶ 95 (“When a defendant fails to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress in a posttrial motion, any claimed error relating to the motion to suppress is forfeited.”). 2014See People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271 (2008); see also People v. Robinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102476, ¶ 95 (“When a defendant fails to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress in a posttrial motion, any claimed error relating to the motion to suppress is forfeited.”). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Angelique E.green2 sentences2025See In re Angelique E., 389 Ill. 2021See In re Angelique E., 389 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2014Recognizing this, defendant asks this court to review her claim for plain error or under the theory that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve her claim. ¶ 17 The plain-error doctrine permits this court to address an unpreserved error “when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005). -5- Under either prong, the first step in determining whether the plain-error doctrine applies is to determine whether any reversible er 2014Recognizing this, defendant asks this court to review her claim for plain error or under the theory that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve her claim. ¶ 17 The plain-error doctrine permits this court to address an unpreserved error “when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2014See People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271 (2008); see also People v. Robinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102476, ¶ 95 (“When a defendant fails to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress in a posttrial motion, any claimed error relating to the motion to suppress is forfeited.”). 2014See People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271 (2008); see also People v. Robinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102476, ¶ 95 (“When a defendant fails to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress in a posttrial motion, any claimed error relating to the motion to suppress is forfeited.”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Baergreen2 sentences2007See Baer, 97 Ill. 2007See Baer, 97 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hughesgreen1 sentence2024See Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶¶ 45-47 (defendant’s failure to challenge admissibility of his confession at trial precluded consideration of the matter on appeal). ¶ 30 “It is well-established that the trial court has no duty to sua sponte exclude evidence when a party fails to make an objection.” People v. Smith, 2012 IL App (1st) 143728 , ¶ 60. 9 Moreover, failure to object at trial or raise a claim in a posttrial motion denies the opposing party and the trial court the opportunity to fully consider the issue. | 1 | 1 |
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2013Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Echolsgreen1 sentence2005People v. Echols, 282 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillsgreen2 sentences1989Where a defendant fails to claim that his confession was the product of coercion or was involuntary, it is unnecessary for the State to produce all of the witnesses to the confession. {In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 389-90 , 336 N.E.2d 753 ; see People v. Hills (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 500, 506 , 401 N.E.2d 523 .) Likewise, where, as here, defendant claims that the police used excessive force in arresting him but failed to establish, in either his motion to suppress or in his testimony at the suppression hearing, any relationship between the alleged use of force and his subsequent confession suc 1989Where a defendant fails to claim that his confession was the product of coercion or was involuntary, it is unnecessary for the State to produce all of the witnesses to the confession. {In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 389-90 , 336 N.E.2d 753 ; see People v. Hills (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 500, 506 , 401 N.E.2d 523 .) Likewise, where, as here, defendant claims that the police used excessive force in arresting him but failed to establish, in either his motion to suppress or in his testimony at the suppression hearing, any relationship between the alleged use of force and his subsequent confession suc | 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. Meadows
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2020Id. 3 Though it is not relevant to the parites’ contentions on appeal, we note section 6-303(d) requires also that the conviction be the defendant’s second conviction for violation of section 6-303, and that the prior conviction occurred while the person’s driver’s license was suspended or revoked for, inter alia, a statutory summary suspension under section 11-501.1 of the Code. 625 ILCS 5/6-303(d) (West 2016). | 3 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Bolden
green
1 sentence1993(People v. Bolden (1991), 210 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Lamb
green
2 sentences1989Where a defendant fails to claim that his confession was the product of coercion or was involuntary, it is unnecessary for the State to produce all of the witnesses to the confession. {In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 389-90 , 336 N.E.2d 753 ; see People v. Hills (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 500, 506 , 401 N.E.2d 523 .) Likewise, where, as here, defendant claims that the police used excessive force in arresting him but failed to establish, in either his motion to suppress or in his testimony at the suppression hearing, any relationship between the alleged use of force and his subsequent confession suc 1989Where a defendant fails to claim that his confession was the product of coercion or was involuntary, it is unnecessary for the State to produce all of the witnesses to the confession. {In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 389-90 , 336 N.E.2d 753 ; see People v. Hills (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 500, 506 , 401 N.E.2d 523 .) Likewise, where, as here, defendant claims that the police used excessive force in arresting him but failed to establish, in either his motion to suppress or in his testimony at the suppression hearing, any relationship between the alleged use of force and his subsequent confession suc | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lott v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1936(Lott v. Davis, 264 Ill. 272 ; Miller v. Akin, 350 id. 186.) Since Andrews failed to challenge the sufficiency of the bills in the circuit court, he cannot do so here. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.