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 1 courts 1977–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buchanan v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard 2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kashneygreen2 sentences2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard 2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pulliamgreen2 sentences2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard 2016People v. Pulliam, 176 Ill. 2d 261, 278, 280 (1997), citing as support Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 (1987) (prosecution may constitutionally present evidence from a court-ordered fitness examination if defendant first presents psychiatric evidence); People v. Kashney, 111 Ill. 2d 454, 461 (1986) (whether or not defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity not dispositive on this issue where defendant first introduced psychiatric evidence). ¶ 35 Defendant also argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court misrepresented the law regard | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Klopfer v. Court of Claims
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 501-502 . 2017Id. at 501-02 . | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Rorer
green
2 sentences2016Defendant argues that he did not have to raise this issue as an affirmative defense, and that, instead, the defense is -23- 1-12-2345 raised at trial by the presentation of "some evidence thereon," citing to People v. Rorer, 44 Ill. 2016Defendant argues that he did not have to raise this issue as an affirmative defense, and that, instead, the defense is -23- 1-12-2345 raised at trial by the presentation of "some evidence thereon," citing to People v. Rorer, 44 Ill. | 3 | 2015–2016 |
Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co.
green
2 sentences2002Like security for costs, the primary benefactor of statutes of limitations are defendants ( Geneva Const. Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co. , 4 Ill. 2d 273 , 122 N.E.2d 540 (1954) who must both plead and prove the issue as an affirmative defense. 2002Like security for costs, the primary benefactor of statutes of limitations are defendants ( Geneva Const. Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co. , 4 Ill. 2d 273 , 122 N.E.2d 540 (1954) who must both plead and prove the issue as an affirmative defense. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Greene v. Helis
green
2 sentences2002Greene v. Helis, 252 Ill. 2002Greene v. Helis , 252 Ill. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Dunham v. Dangeles
green
1 sentence1983App. 3d 252, 255 , 384 N.E.2d 836, 838 .) If, as defendants suggest, plaintiff should have alleged proper licensure in its complaint, then defendants should have raised the issue as an affirmative defense or in some way put plaintiff and the trial court on notice that the complaint was defective. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters
green
2 sentences1977The trial court considered this issue as an affirmative defense and determined that: "The affirmative defense in defendant's answer is substantially *638 insufficient in law to state a defense to the cause of action alleged in the first amended complaint, because the endorsement relied upon is ineffective to reduce the amount of defendant's primary insurance under the rule of New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 34 Ill.2d 424 (1966), and Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 48 Ill.2d 108 (1971)." As the opinion notes the cited 1977The trial court considered this issue as an affirmative defense and determined that: “The affirmative defense in defendant’s answer is substantially insufficient in law to state a defense to the cause of action alleged in the first amended complaint, because the endorsement relied upon is ineffective to reduce the amount of defendant’s primary insurance under the rule of New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 34 Ill. 2d 424 (1966), and Automobile Undertvriters, Inc. v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 48 Ill. 2d 108 (1971).” As the opinion notes the cited ca | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.