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.
120 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2026 22 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. Childrousgreen2 sentences2018App. 3d 38 , 53, 142 Ill.Dec. 511 , 552 N.E.2d 1252 (1990) ("When a statement is made in the presence and hearing of an accused, incriminating in character, and such a statement is not denied, contradicted or objected to by him, both the statement and the fact of his failure to deny it are admissible in a criminal trial as evidence of his acquiescence in its truth."). ¶ 17 The tacit admission rule provides, "When a statement that is incriminating in nature is made in the presence and hearing of an accused and such statement is not denied, contradicted, or objected to by him, both the statement 2018App. 3d 38 , 53, 142 Ill.Dec. 511 , 552 N.E.2d 1252 (1990) ("When a statement is made in the presence and hearing of an accused, incriminating in character, and such a statement is not denied, contradicted or objected to by him, both the statement and the fact of his failure to deny it are admissible in a criminal trial as evidence of his acquiescence in its truth."). ¶ 17 The tacit admission rule provides, "When a statement that is incriminating in nature is made in the presence and hearing of an accused and such statement is not denied, contradicted, or objected to by him, both the statement | 3 | 6 |
People v. Sotogreen2 sentences2021We note that defendant’s testimony on direct examination was that the argument on the way home was “verbal,” whereas in the recorded call defendant said, “she’s hitting me,” and then on recross-examination he again said that Karina was hitting him in the car on the drive from Belvidere. ¶ 80 During the phone call, Person 2 told defendant that Karina “said that you were out on Friday night or that you beat her up on Friday.” Defendant responded by saying, “[U]hmhum.” Person 2 said, “[Y]eah bro,” and defendant responded, “[Y]ea well.” While defendant went on to describe Karina as the instigator, 2020We note that defendant’s testimony on direct examination was that the argument on the way home was “verbal,” whereas in the recorded call defendant said, “she’s hitting me,” and then on recross-examination he again said that Karina was hitting him in the car on the drive from Belvidere. ¶ 80 During the phone call, Person 2 told defendant that Karina “said that you were out on Friday night or that you beat her up on Friday.” Defendant responded by saying, “[U]hmhum.” Person 2 said, “[Y]eah bro,” and defendant responded, “[Y]ea well.” While defendant went on to describe Karina as the instigator, | 3 | 6 |
Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc.green2 sentences2026See Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 172459, ¶ 157 (noting that harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, it appears no harm was done, and reversible error occurs when the error appears to have affected the outcome of the trial). ¶ 42 In summary, the professionals in this matter—including the court-appointed custody evaluator, the children’s therapists, the GAL, and the reunification counselor—all recommended restrictions on Sunit’s parenting time. 2026See Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 172459, ¶ 157 (noting that harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, it appears no harm was done, and reversible error occurs when the error appears to have affected the outcome of the trial). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2017See also Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 95 ("While the presence of Miranda warnings alone is not sufficient to purge the taint of illegality from a illegal arrest, it is a factor to be considered."). ¶ 120 In the case at bar, the trial court found that the police provided Miranda warnings. 2017See also Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 95 ("While the presence of Miranda warnings alone is not sufficient to purge the taint of illegality from a illegal arrest, it is a factor to be considered."). ¶ 120 In the case at bar, the trial court found that the police provided Miranda warnings. | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Pelleranogreen2 sentences2022Harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, “the reviewing court can see from the entire record that no harm has been done.” Jackson v. Pellerano, 210 Ill. 2019Harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, it appears " 'no harm has been done.' " Jefferson v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center , 2018 IL App (1st) 162219 , ¶ 39, 420 Ill.Dec. 599 , 97 N.E.3d 173 (quoting Jackson v. Pellerano , 210 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Wilbertongreen2 sentences2007A. Presence of Miranda Warnings “Although police cannot dissipate the taint of an illegal arrest simply by giving Miranda warnings, the presence of the warnings prior to interrogation carries some weight.” Wilberton, 348 Ill. 2004“Although police cannot dissipate the taint of an illegal arrest simply by giving Miranda warnings, the presence of the warnings prior to interrogation carries some weight.” Wilberton, 348 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. Browngreen2 sentences1983Their only effect is to create the necessity of evidence to meet the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is offered, will prevail.” (Helbig v. Citizens’ Insurance Co., 234 Ill. 251, 257 ; accord, Brown v. Brown, 329 Ill. 198 ; Johnson v. Pendergast, 308 Ill. 255 .) Stated differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. 1976Their only effect is to create the necessity of evidence to meet the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is offered, will prevail.’ (Helbig v. Citizens’ Insurance Co., 234 Ill. 251, 257 ; accord, Brown v. Brown, 329 Ill. 198 ; Johnson v. Prendergast, 308 Ill. 255 .) Stated differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2016See People v. Carter, 383 Ill. 2016See People v. Carter, 383 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2002Despite the presence of an error at trial, a criminal conviction may still be affirmed where "the reviewing court is able to conclude, upon examination of the entire record, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Howard , 147 Ill. 2d 103, 148 (1991). 2002Despite the presence of an error at trial, a criminal conviction may still be affirmed where “the reviewing court is able to conclude, upon examination of the entire record, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Howard, 147 Ill. 2d 103, 148 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Colongreen2 sentences2021We note that defendant’s testimony on direct examination was that the argument on the way home was “verbal,” whereas in the recorded call defendant said, “she’s hitting me,” and then on recross-examination he again said that Karina was hitting him in the car on the drive from Belvidere. ¶ 80 During the phone call, Person 2 told defendant that Karina “said that you were out on Friday night or that you beat her up on Friday.” Defendant responded by saying, “[U]hmhum.” Person 2 said, “[Y]eah bro,” and defendant responded, “[Y]ea well.” While defendant went on to describe Karina as the instigator, 2020We note that defendant’s testimony on direct examination was that the argument on the way home was “verbal,” whereas in the recorded call defendant said, “she’s hitting me,” and then on recross-examination he again said that Karina was hitting him in the car on the drive from Belvidere. ¶ 80 During the phone call, Person 2 told defendant that Karina “said that you were out on Friday night or that you beat her up on Friday.” Defendant responded by saying, “[U]hmhum.” Person 2 said, “[Y]eah bro,” and defendant responded, “[Y]ea well.” While defendant went on to describe Karina as the instigator, | 1 | 5 |
McElroy v. Forcegreen2 sentences1970As the Supreme Court said in McElroy v. Force, 38 Ill.2d 528, 533 , 232 N.E.2d 708, 710 , “State differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. 1970As the Supreme Court said in McElroy v. Force, 38 Ill.2d 528, 533 , 232 N.E.2d 708, 710 , “State differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. | 1 | 3 |
Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Deangreen2 sentences2018If evidence is introduced which is contrary to the presumption, the presumption will cease to operate. [Citations.]' " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean , 95 Ill.2d 452 , 461-62, 69 Ill.Dec. 960 , 448 N.E.2d 872 (1983) (quoting McElroy v. Force , 38 Ill.2d 528 , 532-33, 232 N.E.2d 708 (1967) ). ¶ 27 Section 2-7(a) of the Act provides, in part, as follows: "Whenever a power is exercised, the agent shall act in good faith for the benefit of the principal using due care, competence, and diligence in accordance with the terms of the agency and shall b 2016"Stated differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 462 . | 1 | 3 |
Jefferson v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Centergreen2 sentences2019Harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, it appears " 'no harm has been done.' " Jefferson v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center , 2018 IL App (1st) 162219 , ¶ 39, 420 Ill.Dec. 599 , 97 N.E.3d 173 (quoting Jackson v. Pellerano , 210 Ill. 2019Harmless error occurs when, despite the presence of an error, it appears " 'no harm has been done.' " Jefferson v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center , 2018 IL App (1st) 162219 , ¶ 39, 420 Ill.Dec. 599 , 97 N.E.3d 173 (quoting Jackson v. Pellerano , 210 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019“The presence requirement of the robbery statute relates to the property taken,” which “must have been in the presence or control of the victim.” People v. Smith, 78 Ill. 2d 298, 303 (1980). 2019However, robbery is not “limited to the removal of the property from the *** immediate presence of the owner, possessor or custodian.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at -9- No. 1-18-0500 302. | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| U.S. Bank v. Lindseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Christine R.green | 1 | 1 |
| Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Irangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kemp Yarborough v. John P. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facilitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cassandra Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Matagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hagenbaugh v. Crabtreegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sneedgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Piatkowskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gillespie v. Edmiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mullinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Norman Laverne Wilcoxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Thurowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Amosgreen | 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. Barbara H.
green
2 sentences2006Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 494-95 , 702 N.E.2d at 561 . 2006Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 494-95 , 702 N.E.2d at 561 . | 4 | 2001–2006 |
People v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1992(People v. Morgan (1976), 44 Ill. 1988The appellate court stated: “It is an established principle of law that when a statement is made in the presence and hearing of an accused, incriminating in character, and such a statement is not denied, contradicted or objected to by him, both the statement and the fact of his failure to deny are admissible in a criminal trial, as evidence of his acquiescence in its truth.” Morgan, 44 Ill. | 4 | 1984–1992 |
The People v. Braverman
green
2 sentences1990(People v. Braverman (1930), 340 Ill. 525 .) The majority opines that because defendant removed only first-floor property and the victims were held on the second floor, the presence requirement was not met. 1980People v. Braverman (1930), 340 Ill. 525, 531 . [Citations.] » # The presence requirement of the robbery statute relates to the property taken; it must have been in the presence or control of the victim. | 4 | 1931–1990 |
People v. Palumbo
green
2 sentences2018The State notes that in Simpson , 68 Ill. 2d at 280 , 12 Ill.Dec. 234 , 369 N.E.2d 1248 , our supreme court said: "Communications in the presence and hearing of a third party are generally not considered to be confidential communications within that privilege. ( People v. Palumbo (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 409 , 414-15, 125 N.E.2d 518 .) It is likewise apparent that one in whose presence a communication between spouses is made may testify to that conversation, even though the witness overheard the conversation by eavesdropping. 2018The State notes that in Simpson , 68 Ill. 2d at 280 , 12 Ill.Dec. 234 , 369 N.E.2d 1248 , our supreme court said: "Communications in the presence and hearing of a third party are generally not considered to be confidential communications within that privilege. ( People v. Palumbo (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 409 , 414-15, 125 N.E.2d 518 .) It is likewise apparent that one in whose presence a communication between spouses is made may testify to that conversation, even though the witness overheard the conversation by eavesdropping. | 3 | 1977–2018 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2017Jackson, 374 Ill. 2017Jackson, 374 Ill. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences1995App. 3d 574 , 470 N.E.2d 1222 .) When an incriminating statement is made in the presence and hearing of the accused, and the accused fails to deny, contradict, or object to the statement, both the statement and the fact that the accused failed to deny the statement are admissible as evidence of his acquiescence in its truth. 1992App. 3d 574, 583 , 470 N.E.2d 1222 , as follows: “It is well established that when a statement, incriminating in character, is made in the presence and hearing of the accused, and such statement is not denied, contradicted, or objected to by him, both the statement and the fact of defendant’s failure to deny it are admissible as evidence of his acquiescence in its truth. | 3 | 1988–1995 |
Johnson v. Pendergast
green
2 sentences1983Their only effect is to create the necessity of evidence to meet the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is offered, will prevail.” (Helbig v. Citizens’ Insurance Co., 234 Ill. 251, 257 ; accord, Brown v. Brown, 329 Ill. 198 ; Johnson v. Pendergast, 308 Ill. 255 .) Stated differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. 1976Their only effect is to create the necessity of evidence to meet the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is offered, will prevail.’ (Helbig v. Citizens’ Insurance Co., 234 Ill. 251, 257 ; accord, Brown v. Brown, 329 Ill. 198 ; Johnson v. Prendergast, 308 Ill. 255 .) Stated differently, the presence of a presumption in a case only has the effect of shifting to the party against whom it operates the burden of going forward and introducing evidence to meet the presumption. | 3 | 1967–1983 |
King v. Westervelt
green
2 sentences1977The acknowledgment is well within the guidelines of the cases cited above. • 6 We also would mention that there is no requirement that the testator by his own words request the attestation of the witnesses to his will. ( Dubach v. Jolly, 279 Ill. 530 , 117 N.E. 77 ; Craig v. Trotter, 252 Ill. 228 , 96 N.E. 1003 .) It is not essential that the testator himself request a witness to sign, but it is sufficient if one witness gives the information to another witness, or the instrument is spoken of by another as the testator's will and the witnesses are requested by such third person to sign, provid 1977The acknowledgment is well within the guidelines of the cases cited above. • 6 We also would mention that there is no requirement that the testator by his own words request the attestation of the witnesses to his will. ( Dubach v. Jolly, 279 Ill. 530 , 117 N.E. 77 ; Craig v. Trotter, 252 Ill. 228 , 96 N.E. 1003 .) It is not essential that the testator himself request a witness to sign, but it is sufficient if one witness gives the information to another witness, or the instrument is spoken of by another as the testator's will and the witnesses are requested by such third person to sign, provid | 3 | 1943–1977 |
People v. Ruiz
green
2 sentences2022People v. Ruiz, 2019 IL App (1st) 152157, ¶ 35 . 2022However, D.J.’s statement as reported through Diane does not rise to the level of a recantation. ¶ 35 Defendant also characterizes the evidence as a “tacit admission” and asserts by analogy that “the failure by a defendant to deny an accusation can be considered an admission.” “Under the tacit admission rule, a defendant’s silence may be introduced as a tacit or implied admission of guilt if the defendant remains silent in the face of an accusation of criminal conduct. [Citation.] When an incriminating statement is made in the presence and hearing of an accused and the statement is not denied, | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Brasseaux
green
2 sentences2022Brasseaux, 254 Ill. 2006Brasseaux, 254 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2022 |
People v. Donegan
green
2 sentences2019App. 3d at 1013 ; Donegan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶ 67 ; Campbell, 332 Ill. 2018App. 3d at 1013 , 277 Ill.Dec. 604 , 796 N.E.2d 690 ; Donegan , 2012 IL App (1st) 102325 , ¶ 67, 362 Ill.Dec. 831 , 974 N.E.2d 352 ; Campbell , 332 Ill. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2019App. 3d at 1013 ; Donegan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶ 67 ; Campbell, 332 Ill. 2018App. 3d at 1013 , 277 Ill.Dec. 604 , 796 N.E.2d 690 ; Donegan , 2012 IL App (1st) 102325 , ¶ 67, 362 Ill.Dec. 831 , 974 N.E.2d 352 ; Campbell , 332 Ill. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2018The State notes that in Simpson , 68 Ill. 2d at 280 , 12 Ill.Dec. 234 , 369 N.E.2d 1248 , our supreme court said: "Communications in the presence and hearing of a third party are generally not considered to be confidential communications within that privilege. ( People v. Palumbo (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 409 , 414-15, 125 N.E.2d 518 .) It is likewise apparent that one in whose presence a communication between spouses is made may testify to that conversation, even though the witness overheard the conversation by eavesdropping. 2018The State notes that in Simpson , 68 Ill. 2d at 280 , 12 Ill.Dec. 234 , 369 N.E.2d 1248 , our supreme court said: "Communications in the presence and hearing of a third party are generally not considered to be confidential communications within that privilege. ( People v. Palumbo (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 409 , 414-15, 125 N.E.2d 518 .) It is likewise apparent that one in whose presence a communication between spouses is made may testify to that conversation, even though the witness overheard the conversation by eavesdropping. | 2 | 1992–2018 |
People v. Luedemann
green
2 sentences2006The appellate court did not consider this relevant because it concluded that “[w]hile the presence of such factors may be highly indicative of the occurrence of a seizure, their absence says virtually nothing.” (Emphasis added.) 357 Ill. 2006The appellate court did not consider this relevant because it concluded that A[w]hile the presence of such factors may be highly indicative of the occurrence of a seizure, their absence says virtually nothing.@ (Emphasis added.) 357 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2004Wright, 294 Ill. 2004Wright, 294 Ill.App.3d at 614 , 229 Ill.Dec. 158 , 691 N.E.2d 94 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
David Valenzuela-Gonzalez v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, United States of America, Real Party in Interest
green
2 sentences2002As support, defendant relies on Valenzuela-Gonzalez v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 915 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990), in which the court held that Rules 10 and 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a defendant with a right of presence that is broader than the constitutional right. 2002Absent legislative authority, the Valenzuela-Gonzalez court did not feel “free to ignore the clear instructions of Rules 10 and 43.” Valenzuela-Gonzalez, 915 F.2d at 1281 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| Lindholm v. Holtz green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp. green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Knight v. Guzman green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Helbig v. Citizens' Insurance green | 2 | 1976–1983 |
| Craig v. Trotter green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| Dubach v. Jolly neutral | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| The PEOPLE v. Holiday green | 2 | 1972–1973 |
| Nolan v. Weil-McLain green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Harris green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. McCoy green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lopez Colunga v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Hood green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Herron green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Alfonso green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Dismuke green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Atkinson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Clay green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Womick v. Jackson County Nursing Home green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| United States v. Lawrence Cunningham, United States of America v. Richard Dews, Jr. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Adler v. William Blair & Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| French v. Blackburn green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Takecare v. Loeser green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Sanders green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.