14 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2020 0 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. James Daniel Good Real Propertygreen2 sentences1997As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of an adversary hearing is to insure the requisite neutrality that must inform all governmental decisionmaking, which is "of particular importance [in forfeiture cases] where the Government has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 55-56 , 126 L. 1997As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of an adversary hearing is to insure the requisite neutrality that must inform all governmental decisionmaking, which is "of particular importance [in forfeiture cases] where the Government has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 55-56 , 126 L. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crequegreen1 sentence2020“A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated; rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.” People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶ 42 (citing People v. Creque, 72 Ill. 2d 515, 527 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sevedogreen1 sentence2020“A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated; rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.” People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶ 42 (citing People v. Creque, 72 Ill. 2d 515, 527 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences1997See also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 978 n.9, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 2693 n.9, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 , 854 n.9 (1991) (noting that "it makes sense to scrutinize governmental actions more closely when the State stands to benefit"); United States v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (2d Cir.1992) (disapproving of ex parte hearings in forfeiture cases because of their lesser constitutional projections). 1997See also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 978 n.9, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 2693 n.9, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 , 854 n.9 (1991) (noting that "it makes sense to scrutinize governmental actions more closely when the State stands to benefit"); United States v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (2d Cir.1992) (disapproving of ex parte hearings in forfeiture cases because of their lesser constitutional projections). | 1 | 1 |
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuitgreen1 sentence1997See also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 978 n.9, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 2693 n.9, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 , 854 n.9 (1991) (noting that "it makes sense to scrutinize governmental actions more closely when the State stands to benefit"); United States v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (2d Cir.1992) (disapproving of ex parte hearings in forfeiture cases because of their lesser constitutional projections). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Guadalupe Alcantargreen1 sentence1988Accord United States v. Alcantar (9th Cir. 1987), 832 F.2d 1175 . | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1988Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person." United States v. Calandra (1974), 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561, 569 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 618 ; see also People v. Wilson (1967), 37 Ill.2d 617, 619 (recognizing that a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is civil in nature, but is a sui generis proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
The PEOPLE v. Sirinskygreen1 sentence1975(People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183, 186 (1970).) The prior adversary hearing is a preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heller v. New York
green
2 sentences1982Ed. 2d 745 , 93 S. Ct. 2789 , for the proposition that the issuing magistrate was required to view the films before warrants could issue and that an adversary hearing was necessary prior to the seizure of the films. 1976The United State’s Supreme Court phrased the issue on appeal as ° ° whether a judicial officer authorized to issue warrants, who has viewed a film and finds it to be obscene, can issue a constitutionally valid warrant for the film’s seizure as evidence in a prosecution against the exhibitor, without first conducting an adversary hearing on the issue of probable obscenity.” ( 413 U.S. 483, 484 , 37 L. | 4 | 1975–1992 |
United States v. Calandra
green
2 sentences1988Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.” United States v. Calandra (1974), 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 , 38 L. 1988Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.” United States v. Calandra (1974), 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 , 38 L. | 2 | 1978–1988 |
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1992In Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, the Court observed that while all copies of a film cannot be seized and thus make it impossible for the film to be exhibited pending a determination of the film’s obscenity, “the same is obviously true for books or any other expressive materials.” “While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, the publication may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. [Citation.] Thus, while the general rule und 1992In Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, the Court observed that while all copies of a film cannot be seized and thus make it impossible for the film to be exhibited pending a determination of the film’s obscenity, “the same is obviously true for books or any other expressive materials.” “While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, the publication may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. [Citation.] Thus, while the general rule und | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. McDonald
green
1 sentence1988The procedure which was used here was substantially the same as that subsequently accepted by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. McDonald (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 182 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Dixon v. Love
green
1 sentence1987Dixon v. Love (1977), 431 U.S. 105 , 52 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Hobbs
green
1 sentence1982Turning to the question of whether the judge was required to view the instant films prior to the issuance of the search warrants, we refer to the appellate court opinion in People v. Hobbs (1978), 59 Ill. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas
green
1 sentence1982Ed. 2d 809 , 84 S. Ct. 1723 , a prior adversary hearing was constitutionally required. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater
green
2 sentences1980It is entirely permissible from a constitutional standpoint to enjoin further exhibition of specific magazines or films which have been finally adjudged to be obscene following a full adversary hearing.” (Emphasis added.) (Busch, 17 Cal. 3d 42, 57 , 550 P.2d 600, 609 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 328, 337 .) This ruling is expressly limited to “specific magazines or films,” found to be obscene, and any extension of the injunction beyond this point would constitute a prior restraint. 1980It is entirely permissible from a constitutional standpoint to enjoin further exhibition of specific magazines or films which have been finally adjudged to be obscene following a full adversary hearing.” (Emphasis added.) (Busch, 17 Cal. 3d 42, 57 , 550 P.2d 600, 609 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 328, 337 .) This ruling is expressly limited to “specific magazines or films,” found to be obscene, and any extension of the injunction beyond this point would constitute a prior restraint. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1975He argues that the legends on the cups are prejudicial on their face, and if we do not so consider them, that in the alternative we should remand for an adversary hearing in accordance with due process (citing Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ) to determine the effect of the materials on the jury’s verdict. 1975He argues that the legends on the cups are prejudicial on their face, and if we do not so consider them, that in the alternative we should remand for an adversary hearing in accordance with due process (citing Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ) to determine the effect of the materials on the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People ex rel. Crowe v. Ludwig
neutral
1 sentence1973(People v. Ludwig, 258 Ill.App. 268 ; State v. Lewis, 164 Wis. 363 .)” Plaintiffs authorities stand for the general proposition that prior restraints on freedom of expression, such as mass seizure of books or impounding of films, are illegal unless a prior adversary hearing is provided. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1973(People v. Ludwig, 258 Ill.App. 268 ; State v. Lewis, 164 Wis. 363 .)” Plaintiffs authorities stand for the general proposition that prior restraints on freedom of expression, such as mass seizure of books or impounding of films, are illegal unless a prior adversary hearing is provided. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.