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 1978–2026 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. Mooregreen2 sentences2006The State additionally argues that defense counsel failed to provide the proper foundation for impeaching Officer Stevens because counsel “never introduced the ‘substance’ of the particular grand jury testimonial statement defendant sought to impeach Officer Stevens with.” The State acknowledges that defense counsel asked Officer Stevens, “Did you tell the Grand Jury that the defendant had been driving his vehicle that night?” However, the State challenges the foundation provided by defense counsel because counsel failed to direct Officer Stevens “either by publication or through a tendered co 2006The State additionally argues that defense counsel failed to provide the proper foundation for impeaching Officer Stevens because counsel “never introduced the ‘substance’ of the particular grand jury testimonial statement defendant sought to impeach Officer Stevens with.” The State acknowledges that defense counsel asked Officer Stevens, “Did you tell the Grand Jury that the defendant had been driving his vehicle that night?” However, the State challenges the foundation provided by defense counsel because counsel failed to direct Officer Stevens “either by publication or through a tendered co | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bowensgreen1 sentence2026People v. Bowens, 407 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2024The United States Supreme Court has held that “when [an indigent] defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Ake, 470 U.S. at 83 . ¶ 19 The State acknowledges this standard in its brief but argues that defendant was instead required to “show that the requested expert assistance [was] necessary in proving a crucial | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences2006App. 3d 728, 732 (1999), citing People v. Smith, 78 Ill. 2d 298 (1980). 2006App. 3d 728, 732 (1999), citing People v. Smith, 78 Ill. 2d 298 (1980). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Arna
red
2 sentences2000Accordingly, the State acknowledges that waiver does not bar the defendant's present claim ( Arna , 168 Ill. 2d at 113 ) and that his 10-year sentence should run concurrently with the other sentences. 2000Accordingly, the State acknowledges that waiver does not bar the defendant’s present claim (Arna, 168 Ill. 2d at 113 ) and that his 10-year sentence should run concurrently with the other sentences. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2024The United States Supreme Court has held that “when [an indigent] defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Ake, 470 U.S. at 83 . ¶ 19 The State acknowledges this standard in its brief but argues that defendant was instead required to “show that the requested expert assistance [was] necessary in proving a crucial | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2024The United States Supreme Court has held that “when [an indigent] defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Ake, 470 U.S. at 83 . ¶ 19 The State acknowledges this standard in its brief but argues that defendant was instead required to “show that the requested expert assistance [was] necessary in proving a crucial | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Powell
green
2 sentences1996The State urges this court to follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 , 83 L. 1996The State urges this court to follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 , 83 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Lilly
green
1 sentence1992(People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 .) The State acknowledges that an exception to this rule occurs when an appeal from a final judgment on another offense is taken, the reviewing court may also review the conviction on which no sentence was imposed. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1990Now, turning to the statements defendant gave, the State acknowledges that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. 1990Now, turning to the statements defendant gave, the State acknowledges that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1987In People v. Williams (1986), 142 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Madison
green
2 sentences1980(People v. Madison (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 , 309 N.E.2d 11 ; People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 326, 332 , 259 N.E.2d 8 , cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 945 , 27 L. 1980(People v. Madison (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 , 309 N.E.2d 11 ; People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 326, 332 , 259 N.E.2d 8 , cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 945 , 27 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Queen
green
2 sentences1980The State acknowledges error in this respect but contends that, inasmuch as defendant’s only objection to the cross-examination at issue related to whether or not the convictions were for similar types of crimes, he has waived any other ground of objection for purposes of appeal, citing People v. Queen (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 560 , 310 N.E.2d 166 ; alternatively, it urges that reversal is not required unless it deprived defendant of substantial justice or influenced the determination of his guilt. 1980The State acknowledges error in this respect but contends that, inasmuch as defendant’s only objection to the cross-examination at issue related to whether or not the convictions were for similar types of crimes, he has waived any other ground of objection for purposes of appeal, citing People v. Queen (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 560 , 310 N.E.2d 166 ; alternatively, it urges that reversal is not required unless it deprived defendant of substantial justice or influenced the determination of his guilt. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
The PEOPLE v. Morehead
green
2 sentences1980(People v. Madison (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 , 309 N.E.2d 11 ; People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 326, 332 , 259 N.E.2d 8 , cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 945 , 27 L. 1980(People v. Madison (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 , 309 N.E.2d 11 ; People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 326, 332 , 259 N.E.2d 8 , cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 945 , 27 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Morehead v. Illinois
neutral
1 sentence1980(People v. Madison (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 476, 488 , 309 N.E.2d 11 ; People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 326, 332 , 259 N.E.2d 8 , cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 945 , 27 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Price
green
1 sentence1978App. 3d 610 , 336 N.E.2d 56 .) The State acknowledges that this instruction was erroneously given under Price. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.