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 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2003See People v. Smith, 183 Ill. 2d 425, 430 (1998).' Turning then to the merits of the defendant’s argument, the one-act, one-crime doctrine, articulated in People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977), provides that multiple convictions are not proper where (1) only one physical act was manifested, or (2) multiple acts were manifested, but some of the convictions are of included offenses. 2003See People v. Smith, 183 Ill.2d 425, 430 , 233 Ill.Dec. 823 , 701 N.E.2d 1097 (1998). | 6 | 6 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2025See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(a). “[T]he plain- error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurs and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurs and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” - 11 - People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). 2023Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 564-65 . | 2 | 3 |
People v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2012See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010); Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kinggreen1 sentence2003See People v. Smith, 183 Ill. 2d 425, 430 (1998).' Turning then to the merits of the defendant’s argument, the one-act, one-crime doctrine, articulated in People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977), provides that multiple convictions are not proper where (1) only one physical act was manifested, or (2) multiple acts were manifested, but some of the convictions are of included offenses. | 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. Kopczick
green
2 sentences2015Kopczick, 312 Ill. 2015Kopczick, 312 Ill. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Pickett
green
2 sentences1994App. 3d 322, 326 , 445 N.E.2d 521, 526 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 282-83 , 296 N.E.2d 856, 858 .) We find that the issue defendant raises is fundamental and, therefore, elect to consider this argument under the plain-error doctrine. 1994App. 3d 322, 326 , 445 N.E.2d 521, 526 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 282-83 , 296 N.E.2d 856, 858 .) We find that the issue defendant raises is fundamental and, therefore, elect to consider this argument under the plain-error doctrine. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1994People v. Mitchell (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 344 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Enoch
green
1 sentence1994(See People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176 .) However, we choose to address the merits of the argument under the plain error rule (145 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) because, for the reasons that follow, we find: (1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about J.M.’s statements; and (2) the evidence in this case was closely balanced. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Griffiths
green
1 sentence1994App. 3d 322, 326 , 445 N.E.2d 521, 526 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 282-83 , 296 N.E.2d 856, 858 .) We find that the issue defendant raises is fundamental and, therefore, elect to consider this argument under the plain-error doctrine. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Adams
green
1 sentence1989Defendant cites People v. Adams (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 102 , to support his assertion of plain error. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.