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 1971–2023 2 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. Lewisgreen2 sentences2013People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009). 2013People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cookgreen2 sentences2001See Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 518 , 732 N.E.2d 528, 542 (2000) (the waiver rule is a limitation on the parties and not the jurisdiction of the reviewing court). 2001See Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 518 , 732 N.E.2d 528, 542 (2000) (the waiver rule is a limitation on the parties and not the jurisdiction of the reviewing court). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shawgreen1 sentence2021See People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301, 324 (1998); People v. Autman, 58 Ill. 2d 171, 176-77 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Autmangreen1 sentence2021See People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301, 324 (1998); People v. Autman, 58 Ill. 2d 171, 176-77 (1974). | 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. Herron
green
2 sentences2013Thus, in this context, “[p]lain error arises in two circumstances: (1) when the flawed instruction was provided in a case where the evidence was closely balanced or (2) when the flaw in the instruction is ‘grave’ or so serious that it denied the defendant a substantial right and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 178-79 ). ¶ 21 The defendant has the burden of persuasion under both prongs of the plain-error analysis. 2013Thus, in this context, “[p]lain error arises in two circumstances: (1) when the flawed instruction was provided in a case where the evidence was closely balanced or (2) when the flaw in the instruction is ‘grave’ or so serious that it denied the defendant a substantial right and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 178-79 ). ¶ 21 The defendant has the burden of persuasion under both prongs of the plain-error analysis. | 5 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023Id. ¶ 91 First, the defendant argues that the use of both “conduct” and “offense” in the jury instruction “may have confused the jury.” The defendant does not indicate how the jury may have been confused, and as such, we do not agree with the defendant’s argument. 2014Id. (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 178-79 ). | 3 | 2014–2023 |
People v. Dupree
green
1 sentence2020People v. Dupree, 2018 IL 122307, ¶ 33 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Emerson
green
1 sentence1988The general rule is that proof of a prior consistent statement by a witness is admissible to rebut a charge or inference of recent fabrication or motive to testify falsely, provided the statement is made before the alleged motive to fabricate existed. ( People v. Emerson (1983), 97 Ill.2d 487, 500-01 ; People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill.2d 374, 389 .) The defendant concedes that the State used Phillips' June 21 statement to rebut a charge of motive to testify falsely, but argues that the statement was made after the alleged motive had come into existence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence1988The general rule is that proof of a prior consistent statement by a witness is admissible to rebut a charge or inference of recent fabrication or motive to testify falsely, provided the statement is made before the alleged motive to fabricate existed. ( People v. Emerson (1983), 97 Ill.2d 487, 500-01 ; People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill.2d 374, 389 .) The defendant concedes that the State used Phillips' June 21 statement to rebut a charge of motive to testify falsely, but argues that the statement was made after the alleged motive had come into existence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
The PEOPLE v. Hester
green
1 sentence1971This finds support in common sense and in People v. Hester, 39 Ill.2d 489 * * This alleged flaw in the defense testimony as to insanity cannot be of assistance to the State unless we were to hold as a matter of law that all evidence based on such psychiatric examinations are, in effect, inadmissible. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.