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.
15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Keith Williamsgreen2 sentences2009Corroboration of the Information In United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993), the court wrote that “ ‘[^Information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable[-]cause finding if the person providing the information has a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence.’ ” On the facts of that case, the Fulgham court concluded that “the information given by the first informant was corroborated with specific, consistent details provided by the second in 2008Corroboration of the Information In United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993), the court wrote that “ ‘[information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable[-]cause finding if the person providing the information has a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence.’ ” On the facts of that case, the Fulgham court concluded that “the information given by the first informant was corroborated with specific, consistent details provided by the second inf | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Mambu Fulghamgreen2 sentences2009Corroboration of the Information In United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993), the court wrote that “ ‘[^Information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable[-]cause finding if the person providing the information has a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence.’ ” On the facts of that case, the Fulgham court concluded that “the information given by the first informant was corroborated with specific, consistent details provided by the second in 2008Corroboration of the Information In United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993), the court wrote that “ ‘[information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable[-]cause finding if the person providing the information has a track record of supplying reliable information, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence.’ ” On the facts of that case, the Fulgham court concluded that “the information given by the first informant was corroborated with specific, consistent details provided by the second inf | 3 | 3 |
People v. Exlinegreen2 sentences2006See People v. Exline, 98 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (upholding the warrant under either the AguilarSpinelli test or the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test); but see Exline, 98 Ill. 2d at 157-58 (Goldenhersh, J., dissenting, joined by Simon, J.) (noting that this court is “not required to blindly follow the action taken by the Supreme Court in determining the standards applicable under our own constitution,” and favoring retention of the Aguilar-Spinelli test under the Illinois Constitution). 2006See People v. Exline, 98 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (upholding the warrant under either the AguilarSpinelli test or the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test); but see Exline, 98 Ill. 2d at 157-58 (Goldenhersh, J., dissenting, joined by Simon, J.) (noting that this court is “not required to blindly follow the action taken by the Supreme Court in determining the standards applicable under our own constitution,” and favoring retention of the Aguilar-Spinelli test under the Illinois Constitution). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2026Since the confidential source provided information that was accurate and confirmed by law enforcement with regard to the defendant, it was more likely that the information provided by the confidential source regarding the defendant’s illegal activities was also accurate. ¶ 47 Concerning the observations by the law enforcement officers, the question is not whether the activities observed are innocent or incriminating, but “whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner 2026Since the confidential source provided information that was accurate and confirmed by law enforcement with regard to the defendant, it was more likely that the information provided by the confidential source regarding the defendant’s illegal activities was also accurate. ¶ 47 Concerning the observations by the law enforcement officers, the question is not whether the activities observed are innocent or incriminating, but “whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner | 1 | 3 |
People v. Tislergreen2 sentences2026Since the confidential source provided information that was accurate and confirmed by law enforcement with regard to the defendant, it was more likely that the information provided by the confidential source regarding the defendant’s illegal activities was also accurate. ¶ 47 Concerning the observations by the law enforcement officers, the question is not whether the activities observed are innocent or incriminating, but “whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner 2026Since the confidential source provided information that was accurate and confirmed by law enforcement with regard to the defendant, it was more likely that the information provided by the confidential source regarding the defendant’s illegal activities was also accurate. ¶ 47 Concerning the observations by the law enforcement officers, the question is not whether the activities observed are innocent or incriminating, but “whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner | 1 | 3 |
People v. Veachgreen1 sentence2026See People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 47 (noting petitioners do not forfeit ineffective assistance claims that depend on facts not in record). ¶ 58 The requisite science might also support an as-applied claim under the proportionate penalties clause. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gatesgreen1 sentence2025In Justice Coghlan’s partial dissent, she concluded that the majority’s reasoning was speculative, and she cited our supreme court’s admonition that “ ‘under - 14 - no circumstances can conjecture constitute the sole basis for a claim of prejudice.’ ” Gates, 2023 IL App (1st) 211422, ¶ 91 (Coghlan, J., dissenting) (quoting People v. Hannon, 48 Ill. 2d 462 (1971)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Exlinegreen2 sentences2006See People v. Exline, 98 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (upholding the warrant under either the AguilarSpinelli test or the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test); but see Exline, 98 Ill. 2d at 157-58 (Goldenhersh, J., dissenting, joined by Simon, J.) (noting that this court is “not required to blindly follow the action taken by the Supreme Court in determining the standards applicable under our own constitution,” and favoring retention of the Aguilar-Spinelli test under the Illinois Constitution). 2006See People v. Exline, 98 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (upholding the warrant under either the AguilarSpinelli test or the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test); but see Exline, 98 Ill. 2d at 157-58 (Goldenhersh, J., dissenting, joined by Simon, J.) (noting that this court is “not required to blindly follow the action taken by the Supreme Court in determining the standards applicable under our own constitution,” and favoring retention of the Aguilar-Spinelli test under the Illinois Constitution). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Spencer
green
1 sentence2026Jurisdiction ¶ 43 The State also asserts that Gates’s claim “contradicts” the terms of the supervisory order and “triggers an important jurisdictional concern.” None exists. ¶ 44 The supervisory order directs us to “consider the effect of [its] opinion in People v. Spencer, 2025 IL 130015 ,” on our analysis of trial counsel’s performance: “whether *** trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that [Gates]’s sentence violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution and determine if a different result is warranted.” Gates, No. 130271 (Ill. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Miller
green
1 sentence2026In the supplemental briefing, Gates concedes the first fails after Spencer but insists on the second: “As Spencer makes clear, the fact that Gates’[s] sentence is not a de facto life sentence in no way prohibits him from raising an as-applied proportionate penalties challenge at a new sentencing hearing. *** [T]rial counsel was ineffective for not advocating for a lesser sentence under the proportionate penalties clause[.]” -6- ¶ 38 The State’s waiver argument collapses Gates’s two claims into one claim dependent on a de facto life sentence and labels Gates’s focus in the supplemental briefing | 1 | 2026–2026 |
The PEOPLE v. Hannon
green
1 sentence2025In Justice Coghlan’s partial dissent, she concluded that the majority’s reasoning was speculative, and she cited our supreme court’s admonition that “ ‘under - 14 - no circumstances can conjecture constitute the sole basis for a claim of prejudice.’ ” Gates, 2023 IL App (1st) 211422, ¶ 91 (Coghlan, J., dissenting) (quoting People v. Hannon, 48 Ill. 2d 462 (1971)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hieber
green
2 sentences1998People v. Hieber, 258 Ill. 1998People v. Hieber, 258 Ill. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Jain v. Northwest Community Hospital
green
1 sentence1988App. 3d 420, 425 , 385 N.E.2d 108 ), they maintain that a judicial review of Dr. Gates’ claim is limited by the common law writ of certiorari. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Ross
green
2 sentences1986(People v. Ross (1985), 133 Ill. 1986(People v. Ross (1985), 133 Ill. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Loveless
green
2 sentences1985He cites People v. Loveless (1980), 80 Ill. 1985He cites People v. Loveless (1980), 80 Ill. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences1984Ed. 2d 721 , 104 S. Ct. 2085 ), we must scrutinize the record facts under a Gates analysis in order to ascertain whether the trial judge committed manifest error in refusing to suppress the objectionable evidence, warranting a reversal (People v. Reynolds (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 160, 165 , 445 N.E.2d 766, 769 ). 1984Ed. 2d 721 , 104 S. Ct. 2085 ), we must scrutinize the record facts under a Gates analysis in order to ascertain whether the trial judge committed manifest error in refusing to suppress the objectionable evidence, warranting a reversal (People v. Reynolds (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 160, 165 , 445 N.E.2d 766, 769 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Massachusetts v. Upton
green
2 sentences1984Ed. 2d 721 , 104 S. Ct. 2085 ), we must scrutinize the record facts under a Gates analysis in order to ascertain whether the trial judge committed manifest error in refusing to suppress the objectionable evidence, warranting a reversal (People v. Reynolds (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 160, 165 , 445 N.E.2d 766, 769 ). 1984Ed. 2d 721 , 104 S. Ct. 2085 ), we must scrutinize the record facts under a Gates analysis in order to ascertain whether the trial judge committed manifest error in refusing to suppress the objectionable evidence, warranting a reversal (People v. Reynolds (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 160, 165 , 445 N.E.2d 766, 769 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.