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.
13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Community Hospitals v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2017See Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that NLRB determinations are entitled to considerable deference as long as they are reasonably defensible and that the court defers to the NLRB’s interpretation of section 8(a) when the NLRB faithfully applies the applicable standard and adequately explains the basis for its conclusion); Community Hospitals of Central California v. National Labor Relations Board, 335 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (stating that the court will affirm the NLRB’s order unless the NLRB acted arbitrarily or other 2017See Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that NLRB determinations are entitled to considerable deference as long as they are reasonably defensible and that the court defers to the NLRB’s interpretation of section 8(a) when the NLRB faithfully applies the applicable standard and adequately explains the basis for its conclusion); Community Hospitals v. National Labor Relations Board, 335 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (stating that the court will affirm the NLRB’s order unless the NLRB acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying | 2 | 2 |
Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2017See Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that NLRB determinations are entitled to considerable deference as long as they are reasonably defensible and that the court defers to the NLRB’s interpretation of section 8(a) when the NLRB faithfully applies the applicable standard and adequately explains the basis for its conclusion); Community Hospitals of Central California v. National Labor Relations Board, 335 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (stating that the court will affirm the NLRB’s order unless the NLRB acted arbitrarily or other 2017See Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that NLRB determinations are entitled to considerable deference as long as they are reasonably defensible and that the court defers to the NLRB’s interpretation of section 8(a) when the NLRB faithfully applies the applicable standard and adequately explains the basis for its conclusion); Community Hospitals v. National Labor Relations Board, 335 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (stating that the court will affirm the NLRB’s order unless the NLRB acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying | 2 | 2 |
Witherell v. Weimergreen2 sentences2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener 2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Jewel Tea Co.green2 sentences2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener 2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener | 2 | 2 |
Dillon v. Evanston Hospitalgreen2 sentences2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener 2010Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288, 294 , 263 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970) (“It is settled law that where several causes of actions are charged and a general verdict results, the verdict will be sustained if there are one or more good causes of action or counts to support it,” and the defendants, having failed “to ascertain upon which count or counts the jury returned its verdicts *** by submitting a separate form of verdict as to each count” “cannot complain or seek to take advantage of their failure”); Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321, 329 , 515 N.E.2d 68, 72 (1987) (“When there is a gener | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2008See People v. Patterson, 347 Ill.App.3d 1044, 1054 , 283 Ill.Dec. 871 , 808 N.E.2d 1159 (2004) ("The decision whether to call particular witnesses and the manner and extent of cross-examination are matters of trial strategy and thus will not ordinarily support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim"). 2008See People v. Patterson, 347 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jimersongreen1 sentence2020See Jimerson, 127 Ill. 2d at 43 . ¶ 37 Second, although defendant challenges the blood test result, claiming that the chain of custody and other foundational elements were lacking, such a challenge is a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence and not a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Muhammadgreen1 sentence2020See People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 471 (2005) (rejecting the notion that a defendant’s challenge to the chain of custody was a question of the sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Muhammad, 398 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2020See People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 471 (2005) (rejecting the notion that a defendant’s challenge to the chain of custody was a question of the sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Muhammad, 398 Ill. | 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. Cosby
green
2 sentences2002A challenge under this clause may be made on any one of three bases, only one of which is raised here: "`a penalty violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is cruel, degrading or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.' [Citation.]" Cosby, 305 Ill.App.3d at 225 , 238 Ill.Dec. 513 , 711 N.E.2d 1174 . 2002A challenge under this clause may be made on any one of three bases, only one of which is raised here: “ ‘a penalty violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is “cruel,” “degrading” or so “wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.” ’ [Citation.]” Cosby, 305 Ill. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2024Smith, 2019 IL 123901, ¶ 14 . ¶ 28 Defendant points out that the mittimus entered by the circuit court does not specify whether defendant pleaded guilty to financial exploitation of an elderly person pursuant to subsection (a)(1) (requiring deception or intimidation) or (a)(2) (requiring only illegal use of asset or resource). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
The PEOPLE v. Derengowski
green
1 sentence1971As we put it in People v. Derengowski, 44 Ill.2d 476 , 479: “Furthermore, it is not within the view of the Act to have claims determined which could have been presented on direct review of the conviction. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
The People v. McElroy
green
1 sentence1965People v. McElroy, 30 Ill2d 286, 196 NE2d 651 , and People v. Smith, 24 Ill2d 198, 181 NE2d 77 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
The PEOPLE v. Smith
green
1 sentence1965People v. McElroy, 30 Ill2d 286, 196 NE2d 651 , and People v. Smith, 24 Ill2d 198, 181 NE2d 77 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
The People v. Gibson
green
1 sentence1951A challenge to an instruction identical to the one here given was overruled by this court in People v. Tamborski, 356 Ill. 11 , and in People v. Gibson, 385 Ill. 371 , where it was held that this same instruction on self-defense was not subject to criticism. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
The People v. Tamborski
neutral
1 sentence1951A challenge to an instruction identical to the one here given was overruled by this court in People v. Tamborski, 356 Ill. 11 , and in People v. Gibson, 385 Ill. 371 , where it was held that this same instruction on self-defense was not subject to criticism. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.