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.
12 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 6 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. Downsgreen2 sentences2017See People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934, ¶ 15 (in determining whether an error occurred for purposes of undertaking plain error analysis, standard of review is de novo). 2017See People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934, ¶ 15 (in determining whether an error occurred for purposes of undertaking plain error analysis, standard of review is de novo). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2026“In addressing an assertion of plain error, it is appropriate to determine whether reversible error occurred at all,” as “[w]ithout reversible error, there can be no plain error.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 81, 88 . ¶ 40 Here, defendant is correct that the trial court misstated his criminal history at sentencing. 2025People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 81 (“In addressing an assertion of plain error, it is appropriate to determine whether reversible error occurred at all.”). ¶ 61 In a bench trial, an error in the admission of evidence is reversible only where there is a reasonable probability that the trial court would have acquitted the defendant had it excluded the erroneously admitted evidence. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Hoodgreen2 sentences2023In addressing a defendant’s assertion of plain error, we must first determine whether error occurred at all (id.) because “without error, there can be no plain error” (People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 ). ¶ 42 The standard of review applied to a prosecutor’s closing argument is similar to the standard used to decide whether a prosecutor committed plain error. 2023Id. ¶ 83 We will find reversible error only if the defendant demonstrates that the remarks were improper and that they were so prejudicial that real justice was denied or that the finding of guilt resulted from the error. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2021See People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 ; People v. Harris, 225 Ill. 2d 1, 24 (2007). ¶ 82 Generally, prosecutors have wide latitude in the content of their closing arguments. 2020See People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 ; People v. Harris, 225 Ill. 2d 1, 24 (2007). ¶ 82 Generally, prosecutors have wide latitude in the content of their closing arguments. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen1 sentence2021In the presence of such an error, we then determine whether “(1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. (citing People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007), citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 ). -7- ¶ 27 In addressing an assertion of plain error, it is appropriate to determi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2020People v. Smith, 199 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. Smart
green
1 sentence2025People v. Smart, 2025 IL 130127, ¶ 93 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2023Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Herron
green
2 sentences2021In the presence of such an error, we then determine whether “(1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. (citing People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007), citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 ). -7- ¶ 27 In addressing an assertion of plain error, it is appropriate to determi 2021In the presence of such an error, we then determine whether “(1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. (citing People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007), citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 ). -7- ¶ 27 In addressing an assertion of plain error, it is appropriate to determi | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.