94 Illinois opinions name it 3 courts 1907–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist.green2 sentences2022Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370 . 2021Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 370 (2003). ¶ 15 At the outset, we note that the existence of a duty and the existence of an immunity are separate issues. | 5 | 7 |
Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2022Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010); Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412, ¶ 12 . 2020Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2006Under the plain-error doctrine, defendant has the burden of proving an error occurred (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 480 (2005)) and thus had the burden of demonstrating the handcuff was visible to the jury. 2006Under the plain-error doctrine, defendant has the burden of proving an error occurred (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 480 (2005)) and thus had the burden of demonstrating the handcuff was visible to the jury. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023A violation of the terms of the conditions of discharge subjects the defendant to revocation and resentencing.730 ILCS 5/5- 6-4 (West 2020) (“If the court finds that the offender has violated a condition at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the period, it may continue him on the existing sentence, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions, or may impose any other sentence that was available under Article 4.5 of Chapter V of this Code ***.”) -5- No. 1-22–0801 ¶ 24 At a hearing to revoke conditional discharge, the State has the burden of proving a violation by a prep 2018We find that the defense of necessity applied to defendant’s conduct in briefly possessing a stolen firearm to return it to the store, and the circuit court’s finding to the contrary was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 21 At a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke conditional discharge, the State has the burden of proving a violation of a condition of conditional discharge by a preponderance of the evidence. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(c) (West 2016). “[A] revocation of conditional discharge will be overturned only when it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” People v. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Taubegreen2 sentences2010"The determination to terminate probation rests within the discretion of the trial -12- 1-08-0870 court, and, unless the determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's ruling." People v. Taube, 299 Ill. 2010“The determination to terminate probation rests within the discretion of the trial court, and, unless the determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling.” People v. Taube, 299 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Alvin Omega Owensgreen2 sentences2006The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held, under this insanity statute, “a federal criminal defendant is due a jury instruction on insanity when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that insanity has been shown with convincing clarity.” United States v. Owens, 854 F.2d 432, 435 (11th Cir. 1988). 2006The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held, under this insanity statute, “a federal criminal defendant is due a jury instruction on insanity when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that insanity has been shown with convincing clarity.” United States v. Owens, 854 F.2d 432, 435 (11th Cir. 1988). | 2 | 2 |
American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Libertyvillegreen2 sentences2001While it is true that defendants bear the burden of proving the doctrine applies (American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Libertyville, 269 Ill. 2001While it is true that defendants bear the burden of proving the doctrine applies ( American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Libertyville , 269 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2009People v. Howard, 205 Ill. 2009People v. Howard, 205 Ill.App.3d 702, 708 , 151 Ill.Dec. 113 , 563 N.E.2d 1219 (1990); see People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill.2d 101, 106 , 65 Ill.Dec. 17 , 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Currygreen1 sentence2026See id. ¶ 25 As the record shows respondents were aware their parental rights could be terminated, respondents have not proved they were denied due process and, thus, have not proved an error occurred. | 1 | 1 |
Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Illinois Merchants Trust Co.green1 sentence2025Contracts § 907 (Dec. 2024 Supp.); see also Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Illinois Merchants’ Trust Co., 329 Ill. 334, 345 (1928) (“The claim that the contract was unfair was an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving that defense rested on [defendants-]appellants.”). | 1 | 1 |
Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2025See Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 44 . ¶ 34 Key to defendant’s appellate claims is proof she did not understand English to the extent she could meaningfully participate in the third-stage hearing or communicate with counsel in the presentation of her claims. | 1 | 1 |
Willett v. Cessna Aircraft Co.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Willet v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 366 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. City of Chicagogreen1 sentence2023See Mendez v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 211513, ¶ 28 . 1 ¶ 15 On appeal, plaintiffs assert that neither the Charter nor the Series B Agreements required them to bring this action in Delaware. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reimoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Rollins v. La Salle National Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Estate of Milborngreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Chicago v. Joycegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Colucci v. Chicago Crime Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| In Re Estate of Sewartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo
green
2 sentences2022Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010); Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412, ¶ 12 . 2018Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital , 237 Ill. 2d 217 , 252, 341 Ill.Dec. 381 , 930 N.E.2d 895 (2010) ; Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo , 2015 IL App (3d) 140412 , ¶ 12, 395 Ill.Dec. 601 , 39 N.E.3d 68 . | 4 | 2017–2022 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences2018Gilbert , 2012 IL App (2d) 120164 , ¶ 15, 367 Ill.Dec. 665 , 982 N.E.2d 815 . ¶ 19 Typically, lack of standing to bring an action is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving the defense is on the party asserting it. 2018Gilbert , 2012 IL App (2d) 120164 , ¶ 15, 367 Ill.Dec. 665 , 982 N.E.2d 815 . ¶ 19 Typically, lack of standing to bring an action is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving the defense is on the party asserting it. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2016Id. ¶ 56 In this case, without the proper admission of the prior statement, defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor's questioning of Lindsey where the prosecutor's questions insinuated that a robbery was planned, a robbery occurred, defendant initiated the robbery, and defendant was the gunman who shot and killed the store clerk. 2016Id. ¶ 56 In this case, without the proper admission of the prior statement, defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor's questioning of Lindsey where the prosecutor's questions insinuated that a robbery was planned, a robbery occurred, defendant initiated the robbery, and defendant was the gunman who shot and killed the store clerk. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Gwinn
green
2 sentences2016Thus, because the exception to the statute of limitations was an element of the State’s case, defendant did not forfeit the issue by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion and the State was not relieved of the burden of proving the exception at trial. ¶ 12 We distinguish the present situation from that in People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill. 2015Thus, because the exception to the statute of limitations was an element of the State’s case, defendant did not forfeit the issue by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion and the State was not relieved of the burden of proving the exception at trial. -4- 2015 IL App (2d) 140139 ¶ 12 We distinguish the present situation from that in People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill. | 3 | 2015–2016 |
In Re Estate of Pohn
green
2 sentences2014In re Estate of Pohn, 67 Ill. 2014In re Estate of Pohn, 67 Ill. | 3 | 1976–2014 |
People v. Price
green
2 sentences1971(People v. Price (2nd Dist. 1960), 24 Ill.App.2d 364 , 164 N.E.2d 528 ; People v. White (4th Dist. 1968), 93 Ill.App.2d 283 , 235 N.E.2d 393 .) The sentence to be imposed is for the original offense and not for the subsequent conduct. 1971(People v. Price (2nd Dist. 1960), 24 Ill.App.2d 364 , 164 N.E.2d 528 ; People v. White (4th Dist. 1968), 93 Ill.App.2d 283 , 235 N.E.2d 393 .) The sentence to be imposed is for the original offense and not for the subsequent conduct. | 3 | 1965–1971 |
People v. Lutter
green
2 sentences2015Thus, because the exception to the statute of limitations was an element of the State’s case, defendant did not forfeit the issue by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion and the State was not relieved of the burden of proving the exception at trial. -4- 2015 IL App (2d) 140139 ¶ 12 We distinguish the present situation from that in People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill. 2015Thus, because the exception to the statute of limitations was an element of the State’s case, defendant did not forfeit the issue by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion and the State was not relieved of the burden of proving the exception at trial. -4- 2015 IL App (2d) 140139 ¶ 12 We distinguish the present situation from that in People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
green
2 sentences2012Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 444 , 302 Ill.Dec. 363 , 848 N.E.2d at 935 . ¶ 19 The defendant has the burden of proving the doctrine should be applied. 2012Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 444 , 302 Ill.Dec. 363 , 848 N.E.2d at 935 . ¶ 19 The defendant has the burden of proving the doctrine should be applied. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Landmark Insurance Company v. NIP Group
green
2 sentences2012Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 444 , 302 Ill.Dec. 363 , 848 N.E.2d at 935 ; Landmark American Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 50 , 356 Ill.Dec. 877 , 962 N.E.2d at 577 . 2012Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 444 , 302 Ill.Dec. 363 , 848 N.E.2d at 935 ; Landmark American Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 50 , 356 Ill.Dec. 877 , 962 N.E.2d at 577 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
De Rosa v. Albert F. Amling Co.
green
2 sentences2007To determine whether or not the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the time of the occurrence, you must weigh the following factors: First, whether the defendant directed and controlled the work done by the plaintiff; Second, whether the defendant had the right to discharge the plaintiff; Third, whether the defendant furnished the materials used by the plaintiff; Fourth, whether the defendant controlled the manner in which the work was done by the plaintiff; Fifth, whether the plaintiff is paid on a time basis or by the job.’ ” De Rosa, 84 Ill. 2007To determine whether or not the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the time of the occurrence, you must weigh the following factors: First, whether the defendant directed and controlled the work done by the plaintiff; Second, whether the defendant had the right to discharge the plaintiff; Third, whether the defendant furnished the materials used by the plaintiff; Fourth, whether the defendant controlled the manner in which the work was done by the plaintiff; Fifth, whether the plaintiff is paid on a time basis or by the job.'" De Rosa, 84 Ill.App.3d at 74-75 , 39 Ill.Dec. 180 , 404 | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Deck v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2006Second, even if the handcuff was visible to the jury, the State has proved “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the [shackling] error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Deck, 544 U.S. at 635 , 161 L. 2006Second, even if the handcuff was visible to the jury, the State has proved “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the [shackling] error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Deck, 544 U.S. at 635 , 161 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2006Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L. 2006Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In re Sole
neutral
2 sentences1998In re Application of Sole (1976), 31 Ill. 1993In re Application of Sole (1976), 31 Ill. | 2 | 1993–1998 |
People v. Staten
green
1 sentence2023People v. Staten, 159 Ill. 2d 419 , 426 9 (1994); see also 725 ILCS 5/103-5(f) (West 2018) (stating that “[d]elay occasioned by the defendant shall temporarily suspend for the time of the delay the period within which a person shall be tried”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2023Id. § 6-2(e). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Welling
green
1 sentence2022Id. (citing 720 ILCS 5/6-4, 6-2(e) (West 2012)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Butler
green
1 sentence2022People v. Butler, 2015 IL App (1st) 131870, ¶ 33 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Travelers Personal Insurance Company v. Edwards green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| GPS USA, Inc. v. Performance Powdercoating green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| City of Peoria v. Heim green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| In re Bavido neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re Schaffer neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Davis green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Hamm green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Beard green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| First Security Bank v. Bawoll green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| City of Chicago v. Chiagouris neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Village of Northbrook v. Cannon green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Bouchard green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Bales green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Upton green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rambert v. Industrial Commission green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Fosdick green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Vestal v. Industrial Commission green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corporation, Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Carman Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Wallace v. Industrial Commission neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| National Labor Relations Board v. West Point Manufacturing Company (Lanett Mill) green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| National Labor Relations Board v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Miller Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Brown v. State neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.