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 1972–2025 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. Tommy B.green2 sentences2017A finding of harmless error is appropriate “if the defects could have and should have been objected to immediately, could have been easily cured if objected to immediately, -9- and made no difference.” In re Tommy B., 372 Ill. 2017A finding of harmless error is appropriate “if the defects could have and should have been objected to immediately, could have been easily cured if objected to immediately, and made no difference.” In re Tommy B., 372 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., People v. Martinez, 347 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mullinsgreen1 sentence2011First, the special concurrence turns the harmless-error analysis into a balancing test of harmless versus not harmless error when it criticizes the opinion for not stating "whether [defendant's need to testify] weighs for or against a finding of harmless error." 241 Ill.2d at 35, 350 Ill.Dec. at 838 , 949 N.E.2d at 630 (Garman, J., specially concurring, joined by Thomas, Karmeier and Theis, JJ.). | 1 | 1 |
Heck v. Humphreygreen1 sentence2006Ed. 2d 383, 394 , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372-73 (1994). -10- 1-04-3175 Plaintiff argues by analogy that his challenge to the use of excessive force would "necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction and is thus barred by Heck." Plaintiff buttresses his argument by a reference to footnote seven in the Heck opinion, which plaintiff contends provides that a finding of harmless error is an exception to immediate accrual of a claim. | 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. Rolandis G.
green
2 sentences2014Id. ¶ 64 The State argues that considerations identical to those in Rolandis G. compel a finding of harmless error in this case. 2014Id. ¶ 64 The State argues that considerations identical to those in Rolandis G. compel a finding of harmless error in this case. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Bryant
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 457-58 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lerma
green
1 sentence2025The supreme court has identified three approaches to determining whether harmless error has occurred: “(1) whether the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction; (2) whether the other evidence in the case overwhelmingly supported the defendant’s conviction; and (3) whether the excluded evidence would have been duplicative or cumulative.” Lerma, 2016 IL 118496, ¶ 33 . - 33 - ¶ 102 In this case, all three approaches favor a finding of harmless error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence1988Harris, 134 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Raines v. New York Central Railroad
green
2 sentences1977It has not, however, called attention to any decision holding that the simple assertion that damages are excessive precludes a finding of harmless error, even *439 though the verdict is supported by other proper evidence." ( 51 Ill.2d 428, 436 .) In the present case the defendant does not contend that the damages are excessive, so this contention likewise will not be considered. 1977It has not, however, called attention to any decision holding that the simple assertion that damages are excessive precludes a finding of harmless error, even though the verdict is supported by other proper evidence.” ( 51 Ill. 2d 428, 436 .) In the present case the defendant does not contend that the damages are excessive, so this contention likewise will not be considered. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Stoddard v. Illinois Improvement & Ballast Co.
green
1 sentence1972This court in Stoddard v. Illinois Improvement and Ballast Co., 275 Ill. 199, 205 , refused to reverse a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor for breach of a contract, because “the error was entirely harmless and did plaintiff in error no damage, as the small verdict of $2,500 damages clearly showed.” In Peoria, Atlanta & Decatur R.R. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.