12 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Orthgreen2 sentences1998See People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326, 337-38 (1988). 1998People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326, 337-38 (1988). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Burkegreen2 sentences2003See People v. Burke, 220 Ill. 2003See People v. Burke , 220 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. McClaingreen2 sentences2002People v. McClain, 128 Ill. 2d 500, 505 (1989). 2002People v. McClain , 128 Ill. 2d 500, 505 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tellergreen2 sentences2015App. 3d 346 (1991), we explained that “a summary suspension rescission hearing is civil in nature [citation] and is not part of the criminal process [citation].” Id. at 349 . 2015Accordingly, we held in Teller that “Schmidt does not limit the discovery to which a defendant is entitled in a rescission hearing because such a hearing is civil in nature [citation] and Schmidt involved the discovery permissible in a misdemeanor case.” Id. at 350 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences1991We need not address this issue, however, because a summary suspension rescission hearing is civil in nature (People v. Moore (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 162, 167 ) and is not part of the criminal process (Koss v. Slater (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 389, 395 ). 1991(Moore, 138 Ill. 2d at 167, 169 ; Teller, 207 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Schmidt
green
1 sentence1991Defendant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the process of the subpoena duces tecum is available to a defendant in a misdemeanor case; (2) whether defendant’s right to the process of the subpoena duces tecum is limited by her right to discovery pursuant to People v. Schmidt (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 572, 575 ; (3) whether a defendant may compel the production of documents at a summary suspension rescission hearing (rescission hearing) via the subpoena duces tecum procedure; and (4) whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to quash defendant’s subpoena duces tecum. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Koss v. Slater
green
1 sentence1991We need not address this issue, however, because a summary suspension rescission hearing is civil in nature (People v. Moore (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 162, 167 ) and is not part of the criminal process (Koss v. Slater (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 389, 395 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Flynn
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Flynn (1990), 197 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.