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 1978–2026 2 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. Aguilargreen2 sentences2026Furthermore, the Third District ruled in People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 110 (1994), a decision we adopted in People v. Layne, 286 Ill. App. 3d 981, 989 (1997), that Rule 801’s definition of a defendant’s “admissions” as not hearsay applied to “[a]ny statement by an accused person, unless excluded by the privilege against self-incrimination or other exclusionary rules.” In doing so, the Aguilar court overruled the trial court, which had excluded a defendant’s statement for not fitting the very definition defendant cites here, noting, “The court might have been confusing the admissions 2026There is no requirement that an admission be inculpatory or against interest when made or when offered, because the theory of the admissions exception is based upon the view that the admissibility of a party’s own statement is a product of the adversary system.” Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 110 . | 4 | 5 |
Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205green2 sentences2011See Comprehensive Community Solutions, 216 Ill. 2d at 473 (“the State Board must determine *** whether the proposal was in compliance with the Charter Schools Law, including the requirements listed in section 27A- 7”). 2011See Comprehensive Community Solutions, 216 Ill.2d at 473 , 297 Ill.Dec. 221 , 837 N.E.2d 1 ("the State Board must determine * * * whether the proposal was in compliance with the Charter Schools Law, including the requirements listed in section 27A-7"). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green2 sentences2011An agency’s decision is clearly erroneous “only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 395 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). -13- ¶ 64 We first address District 227’s contention that the eventual proposal from Southland, as recommended by Dr. Koch and approved by the ISBE, failed to meet three statutory requirements: economic soundness; clear standards on goals, objectives, and pupil performance; and a proper admissions standa 2011An agency's decision is clearly erroneous "only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is `left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" AFM Messenger, 198 Ill.2d at 395 , 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 , 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). ¶ 64 We first address District 227's contention that the eventual proposal from Southland, as recommended by Dr. Koch and approved by the ISBE, failed to meet three statutory requirements: economic soundness; clear standards on goals, object | 1 | 2 |
People v. Milkagreen1 sentence2026While it is true that the Second District, in People v. Milka, 336 Ill. App. 3d 206, 232 (2003), declined to follow Aguilar, as defendant argues, until the Illinois Supreme Court provided “further guidance” on the issue, we note both that this court adopted Aguilar prior to Milka in Layne, 286 Ill. App. 3d at 989 , and also that the Illinois Supreme Court has since provided further guidance by changing the name of the applicable evidentiary rule to no longer include any mention of an “admission.” ¶ 129 In light of Aguilar, our adoption of that decision in Layne, and the amendment of Rule 801 t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Laynegreen2 sentences2026Furthermore, the Third District ruled in People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 110 (1994), a decision we adopted in People v. Layne, 286 Ill. App. 3d 981, 989 (1997), that Rule 801’s definition of a defendant’s “admissions” as not hearsay applied to “[a]ny statement by an accused person, unless excluded by the privilege against self-incrimination or other exclusionary rules.” In doing so, the Aguilar court overruled the trial court, which had excluded a defendant’s statement for not fitting the very definition defendant cites here, noting, “The court might have been confusing the admissions 2026While it is true that the Second District, in People v. Milka, 336 Ill. App. 3d 206, 232 (2003), declined to follow Aguilar, as defendant argues, until the Illinois Supreme Court provided “further guidance” on the issue, we note both that this court adopted Aguilar prior to Milka in Layne, 286 Ill. App. 3d at 989 , and also that the Illinois Supreme Court has since provided further guidance by changing the name of the applicable evidentiary rule to no longer include any mention of an “admission.” ¶ 129 In light of Aguilar, our adoption of that decision in Layne, and the amendment of Rule 801 t | 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. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2021This case involves a legal issue and did not require the trial court to use its discretion regarding fact-finding or assessing the credibility of witnesses.’ [Citation.] The appellate court decided, de novo, that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that an admission had to be inculpatory. [Citation.] According to case law, ‘[a]ny statement by an accused person, unless excluded by the privilege against self-incrimination or other exclusionary rules, [might] be used against him as an admission.’ [Citation.]” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 53 We agree with the analysis in Jenkins and find t 2018This case involves a legal issue and did not require the trial court to use its discretion regarding fact-finding or assessing the credibility of witnesses.’ [Citation.] The appellate court decided, de novo, that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that an admission had to be inculpatory. [Citation.] According to case law, ‘[a]ny statement by an accused person, unless excluded by the privilege against self-incrimination or other exclusionary rules, [might] be used against him as an admission.’ [Citation.]” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 53 We agree with the analysis in Jenkins and find t | 2 | 2018–2021 |
People v. Caffey
green
2 sentences2015In Aguilar, which our supreme court cited as an example of a proper de novo review of an evidentiary ruling (see Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d at 89 ), the court considered whether the trial court had properly interpreted the admissions exception to the hearsay rule. 2015In Aguilar, which our supreme court cited as an example of a proper de novo review of an evidentiary ruling (see Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d at 89 ), the court considered -8- whether the trial court had properly interpreted the admissions exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2011An agency’s decision is clearly erroneous “only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 395 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). -13- ¶ 64 We first address District 227’s contention that the eventual proposal from Southland, as recommended by Dr. Koch and approved by the ISBE, failed to meet three statutory requirements: economic soundness; clear standards on goals, objectives, and pupil performance; and a proper admissions standa 2011An agency's decision is clearly erroneous "only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is `left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" AFM Messenger, 198 Ill.2d at 395 , 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 , 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). ¶ 64 We first address District 227's contention that the eventual proposal from Southland, as recommended by Dr. Koch and approved by the ISBE, failed to meet three statutory requirements: economic soundness; clear standards on goals, object | 2 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Armando C. Santos
green
1 sentence1995(United States v. Powers (7th Cir. 1972), 467 F.2d 1089, 1095 .) Because the agents of the Government are supposedly disinterested in the outcome of a trial and are traditionally unable to bind the sovereign (United States v. Santos (2d Cir. 1967), 372 F.2d 177, 180 ), their statements seem less the product of the adversary process and hence less appropriately described as admissions of a party. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Harvey J. Powers
green
1 sentence1995(United States v. Powers (7th Cir. 1972), 467 F.2d 1089, 1095 .) Because the agents of the Government are supposedly disinterested in the outcome of a trial and are traditionally unable to bind the sovereign (United States v. Santos (2d Cir. 1967), 372 F.2d 177, 180 ), their statements seem less the product of the adversary process and hence less appropriately described as admissions of a party. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Waechter v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1993App. 3d 370 , 523 N.E.2d 1348 .) Defendant maintains that the exception applies only to statements made by a party opponent against his or her own interest, and that Coari’s alleged statement as testified to by Geisler could not be admitted under the admissions exception. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Hooker
green
1 sentence1981(People v. Hooker (1977), 54 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Morris
green
1 sentence1981He relies upon People v. Morris (1980), 81 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Stokes
green
1 sentence1978App. 3d 754, 757 , 316 N.E.2d 127 .) We should observe, also, that trial counsel did in fact object to the voluntary manslaughter instruction in his decision not to tender the admissions instruction as a matter of judgment in trial tactics. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.