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.
13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 4 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. Stephensgreen2 sentences2008See also People v. Stephens, 18 Ill.App.3d 971, 978 , 310 N.E.2d 824 (1974) ("[T]he State is not obligated to anticipate the avenue of defense and limit its proofs accordingly, even though [the] defendant admits or stipulates to the existence of certain facts"). 2008See also People v. Stephens, 18 Ill.App.3d 971, 978 , 310 N.E.2d 824 (1974) ("[T]he State is not obligated to anticipate the avenue of defense and limit its proofs accordingly, even though [the] defendant admits or stipulates to the existence of certain facts"). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hobleygreen2 sentences2002People v. Hobley, 159 Ill. 2d 272, 316 (1994). “[T]he State is not obligated to anticipate the avenue of defense and limit its proofs accordingly, even though defendant admits or stipulates to the existence of certain facts.” People v. Stephens, 18 Ill. 2002People v. Hobley , 159 Ill. 2d 272, 316 (1994). "[T]he State is not obligated to anticipate the avenue of defense and limit its proofs accordingly, even though defendant admits or stipulates to the existence of certain facts." People v. Stephens , 18 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2011People v. Johnson, 205 Ill.2d 381, 396-97 , 275 Ill.Dec. 820 , 793 N.E.2d 591 (2002) (finding DNA test on Vitullo rape kit had the potential to produce materially relevant evidence); Hockenberry, 316 Ill. 2011People v. Johnson, 205 Ill.2d 381, 396-97 , 275 Ill.Dec. 820 , 793 N.E.2d 591 (2002) (finding DNA test on Vitullo rape kit had the potential to produce materially relevant evidence); Hockenberry, 316 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hockenberrygreen2 sentences2011People v. Johnson, 205 Ill.2d 381, 396-97 , 275 Ill.Dec. 820 , 793 N.E.2d 591 (2002) (finding DNA test on Vitullo rape kit had the potential to produce materially relevant evidence); Hockenberry, 316 Ill. 2011People v. Johnson, 205 Ill. 2d 381, 396-97 (2002) (finding DNA test on Vitullo rape kit had the potential to produce materially relevant evidence); Hockenberry, 316 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Barrow
green
2 sentences2025Additionally, defendant cites no - 18 - authority in support of his position, nor does he explain how his contention is supported by the plain language of section 116-3. ¶ 48 We emphasize section 116-3 “does not provide a general means to discover evidence but rather an avenue to test targeted items that have the potential to provide materially relevant evidence as to a defendant’s claim of actual innocence.” People v. Barrow, 2011 IL App (3d) 100086, ¶ 30 . 2024Unlike Rule 417, section 116-3 “does not provide a general means to discover evidence” and instead, provides “an avenue to test targeted items that have the potential to provide materially relevant evidence as to a defendant’s claim of actual innocence.” People v. Barrow, 2011 IL App (3d) 100086, ¶ 30 . | 3 | 2022–2025 |
The People v. Scheck
green
2 sentences2002As put in People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208 (1968): "`It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment.'" Speck, 41 Ill.2d at 201-02 , 242 N.E.2d 208 , quoting People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 (1934). 2002As put in People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208 (1968): "`It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment.'" Speck, 41 Ill.2d at 201-02 , 242 N.E.2d 208 , quoting People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 (1934). | 2 | 1974–2002 |
People v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2022Simmons, 93 Ill. 2d at 99-100 ; Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d at 54 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Meyers
green
1 sentence2022Simmons, 93 Ill. 2d at 99-100 ; Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d at 54 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Custer v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2020Custer v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., 2019 IL App (5th) 190285, ¶ 23 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
The People v. Speck
green
2 sentences2002As put in People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208 (1968): "`It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment.'" Speck, 41 Ill.2d at 201-02 , 242 N.E.2d 208 , quoting People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 (1934). 2002As put in People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208 (1968): "`It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment.'" Speck, 41 Ill.2d at 201-02 , 242 N.E.2d 208 , quoting People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 (1934). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1994While a witness’ gang activity may be relevant to show bias against the defendant because the partiality of a witness is always relevant (Gonzalez, 104 Ill. 2d at 337-38 ), in this case, we believe the trial court properly excluded this avenue of inquiry in weighing its probative value (here, its marginal relevance) against the potential for prejudice and confusion of the issues where defendant had other alternatives which he used to discredit Simmons’ testimony. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Hinton
green
2 sentences1981(See People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 239, 243 , 287 N.E.2d 657 , cert. denied (1973), 410 U.S. 940 , 35 L. 1981(See People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 239, 243 , 287 N.E.2d 657 , cert. denied (1973), 410 U.S. 940 , 35 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sellars v. Estelle
green
1 sentence1981(See People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 239, 243 , 287 N.E.2d 657 , cert. denied (1973), 410 U.S. 940 , 35 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Carter v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence1981(See People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 239, 243 , 287 N.E.2d 657 , cert. denied (1973), 410 U.S. 940 , 35 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
The People v. Botulinski
green
2 sentences1974(People v. Botulinski, 392 Ill. 212 , 64 N.E.2d 486 .) As stated in People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 : “It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment. [Citation.] Given the materiality and relevancy of prior chastity to want of consent in a rape prosecution, we also recognize that, under the statute, it is not necessary for the State 1974(People v. Botulinski, 392 Ill. 212 , 64 N.E.2d 486 .) As stated in People v. Scheck, 356 Ill. 56, 62 , 190 N.E. 108 : “It has never been held that the State is barred from proving a fact because the defendant offers to admit it, but, on the contrary, the rule is that when a trial is upon a plea of not guilty the State is permitted to go ahead and introduce its full proof of the crime charged in the indictment. [Citation.] Given the materiality and relevancy of prior chastity to want of consent in a rape prosecution, we also recognize that, under the statute, it is not necessary for the State | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.