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 1968–2023 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. Woodsgreen2 sentences2022In short, “in cases *** where a defendant is accused of a narcotics violation, the physical evidence is often not readily identifiable or may be susceptible to tampering, contamination[,] or exchange.” Id. ¶ 51 Therefore, in drug cases, the State must lay a foundation for the admission of the substance by “establish[ing] a chain of custody.” Id. at 467 . 2022In short, “in cases *** where a defendant is accused of a narcotics violation, the physical evidence is often not readily identifiable or may be susceptible to tampering, contamination[,] or exchange.” Id. ¶ 51 Therefore, in drug cases, the State must lay a foundation for the admission of the substance by “establish[ing] a chain of custody.” Id. at 467 . | 1 | 5 |
People v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2023In doing so, the court held: -6- “[F]or a defendant to be sentenced to enhanced penalties of section 408 of the Controlled Substance Act the following must occur: (1) The defendant must be convicted of a narcotics violation charge as defined in (b) of section 408; (2) he must then commit another narcotics offense which leads to his second or subsequent conviction; and (3) the enhanced penalties provision must be specifically invoked by the trial court when imposing sentence.” Id. 1991The actual holding of Phillips is as follows: “[W]e hold that for a defendant to be sentenced to enhanced penalties of section 408 of the Controlled Substance Act the following must occur: (1) The defendant must be convicted of a narcotics violation charge as defined in (b) of section 408; (2) he must then commit another narcotics offense which leads to his second or subsequent conviction; and (3) the enhanced penalties provision must be specifically invoked by the trial court when imposing sentence.” (Emphasis added.) (Phillips, 56 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. Lane
green
2 sentences1978App. 508 , 36 N.E.2d 846 .) Therefore, we hold that for a defendant to be sentenced to enhanced penalties of section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act the following must occur: (1) The defendant must be convicted of a narcotics violation charge as defined in (b) of section 408; (2) he must then commit another narcotics offense which leads to his second or subsequent conviction; and (3) the enhanced penalties provision must be specifically invoked by the trial court when imposing sentence. 1978App. 508 , 36 N.E.2d 846 .) Therefore, we hold that for a defendant to be sentenced to enhanced penalties of section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act the following must occur: (1) The defendant must be convicted of a narcotics violation charge as defined in (b) of section 408; (2) he must then commit another narcotics offense which leads to his second or subsequent conviction; and (3) the enhanced penalties provision must be specifically invoked by the trial court when imposing sentence. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences1974The determination of the problem in this case begins with the case of Roviaro v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 53 , 1 L. 1974The determination of the problem in this case begins with the case of Roviaro v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 53 , 1 L. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Achilli v. United States
green
2 sentences1972Subsequently in Achilli v. United States, 353 U.S. 373 , 77 S.Ct. 995 , 1 L.Ed. 918 , reh. den. 354 U.S. 943 , 77 S.Ct. 1391 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1540 the court held that Sec. 3616(a) did not apply to income tax returns. *971 In Hutcherson v. United States (1965), 345 Fed.2d 694, the defendant had been sentenced to ten years for a narcotics violation. 1972Subsequently in Achilli v. United States, 353 U.S. 373 , 77 S.Ct. 995 , 1 L.Ed. 918 , reh. den. 354 U.S. 943 , 77 S.Ct. 1391 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1540 the court held that Sec. 3616(a) did not apply to income tax returns. *971 In Hutcherson v. United States (1965), 345 Fed.2d 694, the defendant had been sentenced to ten years for a narcotics violation. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Achilli v. United States
green
1 sentence1972Subsequently in Achilli v. United States, 353 U.S. 373 , 77 S.Ct. 995 , 1 L.Ed. 918 , reh. den. 354 U.S. 943 , 77 S.Ct. 1391 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1540 the court held that Sec. 3616(a) did not apply to income tax returns. *971 In Hutcherson v. United States (1965), 345 Fed.2d 694, the defendant had been sentenced to ten years for a narcotics violation. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence1972Subsequently in Achilli v. United States, 353 U.S. 373 , 77 S.Ct. 995 , 1 L.Ed. 918 , reh. den. 354 U.S. 943 , 77 S.Ct. 1391 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1540 the court held that Sec. 3616(a) did not apply to income tax returns. *971 In Hutcherson v. United States (1965), 345 Fed.2d 694, the defendant had been sentenced to ten years for a narcotics violation. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Cooper v. California
green
1 sentence1968Ed. 2d 730 , 87 S. Ct. 788 , wherein a search of the glove compartment of an automobile which had been impounded by the police was upheld despite the fact that the search occurred one week after the defendant had been arrested for a narcotics violation. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.