13 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2026 3 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. Greenegreen2 sentences2016A defendant is unfit to -6- stand trial if a mental or physical condition prevents him from understanding the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or assisting in his defense. 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2012). “[W]here a defendant was previously adjudicated to be unfit to stand trial, a presumption exists that the condition of unfitness remains until the defendant has been adjudicated to be fit at a valid subsequent hearing.” Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶ 29 (citing People v. Greene, 102 Ill. 2015People v. Greene, 102 Ill. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2000App. 3d 860, 865 , 511 N.E.2d 993, 996 (1987) (presumption of unfitness continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating defendant fit). 2000App. 3d 860, 865 , 511 N.E.2d 993, 996 (1987) (presumption of unfitness continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating defendant fit). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1987(People v. Johnson (1973), 15 Ill. 1980(People v. Johnson (1973), 15 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gipsongreen2 sentences2026This typical response is exactly what defendant gave when he was questioned about waiving his right to a jury trial. ¶ 47 “[W]here a defendant was previously adjudicated to be unfit to stand trial, a presumption exists that the condition of unfitness remains until the defendant has been adjudicated to be fit at a valid subsequent hearing.” Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶ 29 . 2016A defendant is unfit to -6- stand trial if a mental or physical condition prevents him from understanding the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or assisting in his defense. 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2012). “[W]here a defendant was previously adjudicated to be unfit to stand trial, a presumption exists that the condition of unfitness remains until the defendant has been adjudicated to be fit at a valid subsequent hearing.” Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶ 29 (citing People v. Greene, 102 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Herrongreen1 sentence2023See 725 ILCS 5/104-20(a) (West 2018)). “[W]here a defendant was previously adjudicated to be unfit to stand trial, a presumption exists that the condition of unfitness remains until the defendant has been adjudicated to be fit at a valid subsequent hearing.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Contornogreen1 sentence2016App. 3d 639, 641-42 (1981)). ¶ 21 “Normally, a trial court’s decision that a defendant is fit to stand trial will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” People v. Contorno, 322 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. Williams
green
2 sentences1987App. 3d 608, 612 , 415 N.E.2d 1192 .) This presumption continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating him fit. 1983(People v. McKinstray (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 611 , 198 N.E.2d 829 ; People v. Williams (1980), 92 Ill. | 3 | 1981–1987 |
People v. Gillon
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
The People v. McKinstray
green
2 sentences1983(People v. McKinstray (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 611 , 198 N.E.2d 829 ; People v. Williams (1980), 92 Ill. 1983(People v. McKinstray (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 611 , 198 N.E.2d 829 ; People v. Williams (1980), 92 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Santoro
neutral
1 sentence1981App. 3d 426 , 301 N.E.2d 175 (abstract).) This presumption continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating him fit. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People Ex Rel. Suddeth v. Rednour
green
2 sentences1980Suddeth v. Rednour (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 278, 285 , 211 N.E.2d 281 .) This presumption continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating him fit. 1980Suddeth v. Rednour (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 278, 285 , 211 N.E.2d 281 .) This presumption continues until there has been a valid subsequent hearing adjudicating him fit. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.