14 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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. Lewisgreen2 sentences2013People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009). 2013People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shawgreen1 sentence2021See People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301, 324 (1998); People v. Autman, 58 Ill. 2d 171, 176-77 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Autmangreen1 sentence2021See People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301, 324 (1998); People v. Autman, 58 Ill. 2d 171, 176-77 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hoppgreen1 sentence2012People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 299 (2005) (quoting People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Illinoisred1 sentence2012As Justice Thomas explained, he “share[d] the dissent’s view of the plurality’s flawed analysis,” viewing the statements in the Cellmark report as hearsay, and stating, “there was no plausible reason for the introduction of Cellmark’s statements other than to establish their truth.” Williams, 567 U.S. at ___ , 132 S. Ct. at 2255-56 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Durrgreen1 sentence2012People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 299 (2005) (quoting People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004)). | 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. Herron
green
2 sentences2013Thus, in this context, “[p]lain error arises in two circumstances: (1) when the flawed instruction was provided in a case where the evidence was closely balanced or (2) when the flaw in the instruction is ‘grave’ or so serious that it denied the defendant a substantial right and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 178-79 ). ¶ 21 The defendant has the burden of persuasion under both prongs of the plain-error analysis. 2013Thus, in this context, “[p]lain error arises in two circumstances: (1) when the flawed instruction was provided in a case where the evidence was closely balanced or (2) when the flaw in the instruction is ‘grave’ or so serious that it denied the defendant a substantial right and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 178-79 ). ¶ 21 The defendant has the burden of persuasion under both prongs of the plain-error analysis. | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Assn'n
green
2 sentences2016Nevertheless, as plaintiff's argument is largely grounded in what is, at best, a flawed analysis of home rule authority, we choose to address it, as well as its additional arguments, which happen also to have been blended within its challenge to the County's statutory authority. 11 No. 1-14-3694 ¶ 26 "Home rule is based on the assumption that municipalities should be allowed to address problems with solutions tailored to their local needs." Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass'n, 2013 IL 110505, ¶ 29 . 2016Nevertheless, as plaintiff's argument is largely grounded in what is, at best, a flawed analysis of home rule authority, we choose to address it, as well as its additional arguments, which happen also to have been blended within its challenge to the County's statutory authority. 11 No. 1-14-3694 ¶ 29 "Home rule is based on the assumption that municipalities should be allowed to address problems with solutions tailored to their local needs." Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass'n, 2013 IL 110505, ¶ 29 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Salomon Inc. Shareholders' Derivative Litigation
green
2 sentences2011It argues that the South Carolina court in Grant relied on the flawed analysis of In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders’ Derivative Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995). 2011It argues that the South Carolina court in Grant relied on the flawed analysis of In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders’ Derivative Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2001In analyzing section 122 — 1(c), Wright observed that it had “more in common with statutes of limitations than with statutes conferring jurisdiction.” Wright, 189 Ill. 2d at 8 . 2001In analyzing section 122--1(c), Wright observed that it had "more in common with statutes of limitations than with statutes conferring jurisdiction." Wright , 189 Ill. 2d at 8 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2025Under the first prong of plain error, to determine if the evidence was closely balanced, “a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of it within the context of the case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Williams, 2022 IL 126918, ¶ 34 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2025“An erroneous instruction constitutes a substantial defect, or plain error, when the flawed instruction created a serious risk that the defendant was incorrectly convicted because the jury did not understand the applicable law, so as to threaten the fundamental fairness of defendant’s trial.” People v. Anderson, 2012 IL App (1st) 103288, ¶ 60 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶ 91 First, the defendant argues that the use of both “conduct” and “offense” in the jury instruction “may have confused the jury.” The defendant does not indicate how the jury may have been confused, and as such, we do not agree with the defendant’s argument. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.