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 1978–2025 2 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. Hruzagreen2 sentences2015People v. Hruza, 312 Ill. 2015People v. Hruza, 312 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cranegreen2 sentences2006Factors the court should consider, among others, are the length of the delay and the seriousness of the crime." (Emphasis in original.) Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 459 . -4- 1-04-3314 Both parties contend that we have the authority to apply the Lawson test de novo. "[T]he ultimate determination of whether a defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right has been violated is subject to de novo review." People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 52 (2001). 2006Factors the court should consider, among others, are the length of the delay and the seriousness of the crime." (Emphasis in original.) Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 459 . -4- 1-04-3314 Both parties contend that we have the authority to apply the Lawson test de novo. "[T]he ultimate determination of whether a defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right has been violated is subject to de novo review." People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 52 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lawsongreen2 sentences2006Factors the court should consider, among others, are the length of the delay and the seriousness of the crime." (Emphasis in original.) Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 459 . -4- 1-04-3314 Both parties contend that we have the authority to apply the Lawson test de novo. "[T]he ultimate determination of whether a defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right has been violated is subject to de novo review." People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 52 (2001). 2006Factors the court should consider, among others, are the length of the delay and the seriousness of the crime." (Emphasis in original.) Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 459 . -4- 1-04-3314 Both parties contend that we have the authority to apply the Lawson test de novo. "[T]he ultimate determination of whether a defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right has been violated is subject to de novo review." People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 52 (2001). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Schroedergreen2 sentences2015Schroeder, 102 Ill. 2015Schroeder, 102 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Silvergreen2 sentences2019People v. Silver, 376 Ill. 2019People v. Silver, 376 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Belcher
green
2 sentences2014In contrast, in cases involving postindictment delay the Lawson test is inapplicable. 36 1-12-1323 Belcher, 186 Ill. 2014In contrast, in cases involving postindictment delay the Lawson test is inapplicable. 36 1-12-1323 Belcher, 186 Ill. | 3 | 1994–2015 |
People v. Gulley
green
2 sentences2006Gulley, 83 Ill. 2006Gulley, 83 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Lawson
neutral
1 sentence2025CONCLUSION ¶ 30 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. ¶ 31 Reversed and remanded. 11 People v. Lawson, 2025 IL App (3d) 240450 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 19-CF-1043; the Hon. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Stapinski
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶ 106 Here, the trial court found that defendant failed to make a showing of actual and substantial prejudice and thus did not proceed to the further steps of a Lawson analysis. 2022Id. ¶ 106 Here, the trial court found that defendant failed to make a showing of actual and substantial prejudice and thus did not proceed to the further steps of a Lawson analysis. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. Marion
green
2 sentences2019Marion, 404 U.S. at 320 . 2019Marion, 404 U.S. at 320 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2019As explained, however, under the circumstances here, defendant has demonstrated only the possibility of prejudice, so the trial court’s judgment was correct. ¶ 97 Defendant also argues that, rather than using the Lawson framework, we should instead use the constitutional speedy-trial analysis employed in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). 2019As explained, however, under the circumstances here, defendant has demonstrated only the possibility of prejudice, so the trial court’s judgment was correct. ¶ 97 Defendant also argues that, rather than using the Lawson framework, we should instead use the constitutional speedy-trial analysis employed in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Donald J. Angelini, Dominic Cortina, Joseph Spadavecchio, Salvatore J. Molose, Nick Camillo, John La Placa and Frank Aureli
green
2 sentences1982As we have noted, Lawson approved a refusal to suppress, even in the face of an inadequate explanation for a sealing delay longer than those before us here, because the integrity of the tapes was not challenged.” United States v. Angelini (7th Cir. 1977), 565 F.2d 469, 473 . 1982As we have noted, Lawson approved a refusal to suppress, even in the face of an inadequate explanation for a sealing delay longer than those before us here, because the integrity of the tapes was not challenged.” United States v. Angelini (7th Cir. 1977), 565 F.2d 469, 473 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Dillingham v. United States
green
2 sentences1981(Dillingham v. United States (1975), 423 U.S. 64, 65 , 46 L. 1981(Dillingham v. United States (1975), 423 U.S. 64, 65 , 46 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1980App. 3d 919 , 377 N.E.2d 815 , appeal denied (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 612 (prejudice was presumed).) We agree with the trial court that the defendant satisfied the first element of the Lawson test. 1980App. 3d 919 , 377 N.E.2d 815 , appeal denied (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 612 (prejudice was presumed).) We agree with the trial court that the defendant satisfied the first element of the Lawson test. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Shick
green
1 sentence1978The State has cited People v. Shick (1968), 101 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.