13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 5 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2019See 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016). ¶ 209 The reviewing court in Smith found the admission of a prior consistent statement in a jury trial was reversible error where the witness’s in-court testimony was crucial or where there is competent evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the improper admission of the statement “clouds the evidence to such a degree that it is impossible to tell whether the jury relied on it.” Smith, 139 Ill. 2018See 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016). ¶ 209 The reviewing court in Smith found the admission of a prior consistent statement in a jury trial was reversible error where the witness' in court testimony was crucial, or where there is competent evidence to establish a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the improper admission of the statement "clouds the evidence to such a degree that it is impossible to tell whether the jury relied on it." Smith , 139 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Jaeger v. Clear Wing Productions, Inc.green2 sentences2019Some courts will only apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel where there is -8- evidence of “deliberate” omission, “cold manipulation” or a “scheme to mislead the court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jaeger v. Clear Wing Productions, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 879, 882 (S.D. 2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context where the nondisclosure of a claim was inadvertent.’ ” (quoting Jaeger v. Clear Wing Productions, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 879, 882 (S.D. | 2 | 2 |
New Hampshire v. Mainegreen2 sentences2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant 5 As will appear hereafter, in this case we would not need to engage in the full analysis we outline, i.e., review of the ruling on summary judgment, and could perhaps decline to settle the matter of standards of review in that respect (see The Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context where the nondisclosure of a claim was inadvertent.’ ” (quoting Jaeger v. Clear Wing Productions, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 879, 882 (S.D. | 2 | 2 |
Holland v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc.green2 sentences2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant 5 As will appear hereafter, in this case we would not need to engage in the full analysis we outline, i.e., review of the ruling on summary judgment, and could perhaps decline to settle the matter of standards of review in that respect (see The Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context where the nondisclosure of a claim was inadvertent.’ ” (quoting Jaeger v. Clear Wing Productions, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 879, 882 (S.D. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopezgreen1 sentence2025App. 3d 916, 920 (2008). ¶ 68 Circuit courts are granted “wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness [citation] and against the demands of its calendar.” United States v. Gonzalez– Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tuckergreen1 sentence2025Multiple factors should be considered in making such an inquiry, including “whether defendant articulates an acceptable reason for desiring new counsel; whether the defendant has 25 continuously been in custody; whether he has informed the trial court of his efforts to obtain counsel; whether he has cooperated with current counsel; and the length of time defendant has been represented by current counsel.” People v. Tucker, 382 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant 5 As will appear hereafter, in this case we would not need to engage in the full analysis we outline, i.e., review of the ruling on summary judgment, and could perhaps decline to settle the matter of standards of review in that respect (see The Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 | 1 | 1 |
The Venture-New berg Perini Stone and Webster v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commissiongreen1 sentence2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant 5 As will appear hereafter, in this case we would not need to engage in the full analysis we outline, i.e., review of the ruling on summary judgment, and could perhaps decline to settle the matter of standards of review in that respect (see The Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 | 1 | 1 |
Hoffler v. Beziogreen1 sentence2015New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753 (acknowledging that it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake); accord Holland, 2013 IL App (5th) 110560, ¶ 120 (“ ‘The Courts have been reluctant 5 As will appear hereafter, in this case we would not need to engage in the full analysis we outline, i.e., review of the ruling on summary judgment, and could perhaps decline to settle the matter of standards of review in that respect (see The Venture—Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. Collins
green
2 sentences2025Multiple factors may affect that decision, including the significance or impact of the party’s action in the first proceeding and “ ‘whether there was an intent to deceive or mislead, as opposed to the prior position having been the result of inadvertence or mistake.’ ” Id. (quoting Seymour, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 47 ). ¶ 81 Although matters of discretion are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, where the exercise of the court’s discretion is sought in the context of a dispositive motion and results in the termination of the litigation, it is reviewed de novo. 2019Multiple factors may inform the court’s decision, among them the impact of the party’s action in the first proceeding and “whether there was an intent to deceive or mislead, as opposed to the prior position having been the result of inadvertence or mistake.” Seymour, 2015 IL 118432 , ¶ 47. | 5 | 2017–2025 |
Duniver v. Clark Material Handling Co.
green
2 sentences2025Multiple factors may affect that decision, including the significance or impact of the party’s action in the first proceeding and “ ‘whether there was an intent to deceive or mislead, as opposed to the prior position having been the result of inadvertence or mistake.’ ” Id. (quoting Seymour, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 47 ). ¶ 81 Although matters of discretion are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, where the exercise of the court’s discretion is sought in the context of a dispositive motion and results in the termination of the litigation, it is reviewed de novo. 2025Seymour, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 49 ; Duniver, 2021 IL App (1st) 200818, ¶ 13 . ¶ 82 2. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Will v. Northwestern University
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 302 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences2021Defendant was not deprived of a fair sentencing hearing where the court considered multiple factors in aggravation at sentencing—defendant’s violent history, deterrence, and defendant’s status “on MSR at the time of the alleged offense.” See People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 55 , 25 N.E.3d 1257 (finding the trial court’s consideration of several aggravating factors supported the conclusion remand was unnecessary). 2021Defendant was not deprived of a fair sentencing hearing where the court considered multiple factors in aggravation at sentencing—defendant’s violent history, deterrence, and defendant’s status “on MSR at the time of the alleged offense.” See People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 55 , 25 N.E.3d 1257 (finding the trial court’s consideration of several aggravating factors supported the conclusion remand was unnecessary). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Spicer
green
1 sentence2015Spicer, 379 Ill. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.