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 1988–2026 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2026In other words, a postconviction claim is not forfeited when the facts supporting the claim “do not appear on the face of the original appellate record.” People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004); English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 22 ; see People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 47 ; People v. Hall, 157 Ill. 2d 324, 336-37 (1993); People v. 1 We note that, in his reply brief, Carroll argues that the State cannot change its position regarding forfeiture of the postconviction claims. 2026Rather, because appellate review is generally confined to the record, the pertinent question is whether the facts “appear on the face of the original appellate record.” Williams, 209 Ill. 2d at 233 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen1 sentence2026In other words, a postconviction claim is not forfeited when the facts supporting the claim “do not appear on the face of the original appellate record.” People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004); English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 22 ; see People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 47 ; People v. Hall, 157 Ill. 2d 324, 336-37 (1993); People v. 1 We note that, in his reply brief, Carroll argues that the State cannot change its position regarding forfeiture of the postconviction claims. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Veachgreen1 sentence2026In other words, a postconviction claim is not forfeited when the facts supporting the claim “do not appear on the face of the original appellate record.” People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004); English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 22 ; see People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 47 ; People v. Hall, 157 Ill. 2d 324, 336-37 (1993); People v. 1 We note that, in his reply brief, Carroll argues that the State cannot change its position regarding forfeiture of the postconviction claims. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 1 , 15 37 (2002) (res judicata did not bar postconviction claim where the facts supporting the claim did not appear in original appellate record). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Piercegreen1 sentence2022People v. Pierce, 226 Ill. 2d 470, 475 (2007). “[F]undamental fairness requires that the trial court fully and properly instruct the jury on the elements of the offense,” among other topics. | 1 | 1 |
Ashley v. Scottgreen1 sentence2021Ashley v. Scott, 266 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen1 sentence2019See People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970) (“The difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.”); People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (same). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Deltongreen1 sentence2019See Delton, 227 Ill. 2d at 255 . ¶ 44 Defendant argues, though, that our supreme court has carved out an exception to the section 122-2 affidavit requirement, specifically, that the court has held that defendant need not provide an affidavit from his trial attorney admitting to the facts supporting the claim of ineffective assistance against him. | 1 | 1 |
The PEOPLE v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2019See People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970) (“The difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.”); People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (same). | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Pawlinskigreen2 sentences2016App. 3d at 966 . "[T]he amount of evidence *** to meet the presumption varie[s] with the strength of the facts supporting the presumption." Id. at 965 . 2016"A party may simply have to respond with some evidence or may have to respond with substantial evidence." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 966 . ¶ 23 "Where there is a fiduciary relationship, a gift is not presumed, regardless of the relationship of the parties involved." Deason, 251 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean
green
2 sentences2011"If a strong presumption arises, the weight of the evidence brought in to rebut it must be great." Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill.2d at 463 , 69 Ill.Dec. 960 , 448 N.E.2d 872 . 2011"If a strong presumption arises, the weight of the evidence brought in to rebut it must be great." Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill.2d at 463 , 69 Ill.Dec. 960 , 448 N.E.2d 872 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Whitehead
green
2 sentences2003Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d at 371-72 . 2003Whitehead , 169 Ill. 2d at 371-72 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
People v. English
green
1 sentence2026In other words, a postconviction claim is not forfeited when the facts supporting the claim “do not appear on the face of the original appellate record.” People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004); English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 22 ; see People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 47 ; People v. Hall, 157 Ill. 2d 324, 336-37 (1993); People v. 1 We note that, in his reply brief, Carroll argues that the State cannot change its position regarding forfeiture of the postconviction claims. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Deason v. Gutzler
green
1 sentence2016"A party may simply have to respond with some evidence or may have to respond with substantial evidence." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 966 . ¶ 23 "Where there is a fiduciary relationship, a gift is not presumed, regardless of the relationship of the parties involved." Deason, 251 Ill. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Massaro v. United States
green
1 sentence2012Citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003), the court concluded that defendant’s claim was better suited for a collateral proceeding, “where the facts supporting the claim could be fully developed.” People v. Murdock, No. 3-03-0494 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gaylur Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992App. 3d 709, 713 , 384 N.E.2d 123 .) Where plaintiff has alleged the facts supporting his claim with as much precision as might reasonably be expected, facts rather than conclusions have been alleged. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dilatush v. Salyers
neutral
1 sentence1988However, it has also been stated that “in order to obtain equitable relief it is necessary that a complainant must establish the facts supporting such claim by clear and convincing evidence.” Dilatush v. Salyers (1936), 285 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.