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 1998–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ferrellgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Ferrell, 218 Neb. 463 , 356 N.W.2d 868 (1984); see also People v. Junco, 70 Misc.2d 73 , 333 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an "exotic assertion" that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff'd, People v. *622 Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). 2008See, e.g., State v. Ferrell, 218 Neb. 463 , 356 N.W.2d 868 (1984); see also People v. Junco, 70 Misc.2d 73 , 333 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an "exotic assertion" that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff'd, People v. *622 Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Juncogreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Ferrell, 218 Neb. 463 , 356 N.W.2d 868 (1984); see also People v. Junco, 70 Misc.2d 73 , 333 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an "exotic assertion" that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff'd, People v. *622 Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). 2008See, e.g., State v. Ferrell, 218 Neb. 463 , 356 N.W.2d 868 (1984); see also People v. Junco, 70 Misc.2d 73 , 333 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an "exotic assertion" that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff'd, People v. *622 Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Carreragreen2 sentences2008The appellate court then pointed to this court's decision in People v. Carrera, 203 Ill.2d 1, 11-12 , 270 Ill.Dec. 440 , 783 N.E.2d 15 (2002), which holds that a police officer's right to arrest a person outside his jurisdiction is no greater than that of a private citizen and "that the exclusionary rule is applicable where the police effectuate an extraterritorial arrest without appropriate statutory authority." See also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341 , 719 N.E.2d 473 (1999) (invoking the exclusionary rule when an out-of-state officer effected an extraterritorial arrest without 2008The appellate court then pointed to this court’s decision in People v. Carrera, 203 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2002), which holds that a police officer’s right to arrest a person outside his jurisdiction is no greater than that of a private citizen and “that the exclusionary rule is applicable where the police effectuate an extraterritorial arrest without appropriate statutory authority.” See also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341 , 719 N.E.2d 473 (1999) (invoking the exclusionary rule when an out-of-state officer effected an extraterritorial arrest without statutory or common law authority) | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wallsgreen2 sentences2008Sup. Ct. 1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an “exotic assertion” that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff’d, People v. Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). 2008Sup. Ct. 1972) (describing the condition-precedent argument as an “exotic assertion” that would impose absolute liability on all inadvertent violations of the presentment requirement), aff’d, People v. Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419 , 321 N.E.2d 875 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1974). | 1 | 2 |
Marx Transport, Inc. v. Air Express International Corp.green1 sentence2026Marx Transport, Inc. v. Air Express International Corp., 379 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. House
green
2 sentences2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. 2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. | 8 | 1998–2006 |
People v. Groves
green
2 sentences2003Approving admission of the confession, the court said: "While there is no separate remedy for violation of the presentment rule, our supreme court has held that the delay is a factor to be considered when determining whether the confession was voluntary." Groves , 294 Ill. 2003Approving admission of the confession, the court said: “While there is no separate remedy for violation of the presentment rule, our supreme court has held that the delay is a factor to be considered when determining whether the confession was voluntary.” Groves, 294 Ill. | 6 | 2003–2006 |
People of Illinois v. Dees
green
2 sentences2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. 2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. | 4 | 2004–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Savage
green
2 sentences2008The appellate court then pointed to this court’s decision in People v. Carrera, 203 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2002), which holds that a police officer’s right to arrest a person outside his jurisdiction is no greater than that of a private citizen and “that the exclusionary rule is applicable where the police effectuate an extraterritorial arrest without appropriate statutory authority.” See also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341 , 719 N.E.2d 473 (1999) (invoking the exclusionary rule when an out-of-state officer effected an extraterritorial arrest without statutory or common law authority) 2008The appellate court then pointed to this court’s decision in People v. Carrera, 203 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2002), which holds that a police officer’s right to arrest a person outside his jurisdiction is no greater than that of a private citizen and “that the exclusionary rule is applicable where the police effectuate an extraterritorial arrest without appropriate statutory authority.” See also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341 , 719 N.E.2d 473 (1999) (invoking the exclusionary rule when an out-of-state officer effected an extraterritorial arrest without statutory or common law authority) | 2 | 2008–2008 |
United States Ex Rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 465 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. October 12, 2006), which addressed the presentment requirement of documents to the government in the context of reverse false claims actions. 2007Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 465 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2006), which addressed the presentment requirement of documents to the government in the context of reverse false claims actions. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Willis
green
2 sentences2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. 2006People v. Willis, 215 Ill. 2d 517 , 831 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. House, 141 Ill. 2d 323, 380 , 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990); People v. Dees, 85 Ill. 2d 233, 237 , 422 N.E.2d 616 (1981); People v. Groves, 294 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Galan
green
2 sentences2008For the reasons stated by the majority (see 229 Ill.2d at 518-24 , 323 Ill.Dec. at 344-47 , 893 N.E.2d at 616-17 ), I agree that it should not. 2008For the reasons stated by the majority (see 229 Ill.2d at 518-24 , 323 Ill.Dec. at 344-47 , 893 N.E.2d at 616-17 ), I agree that it should not. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.