11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2016At this stage, it is the trial court’s responsibility to undertake “ ‘a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations in light of the circumstances of the case.’ ” People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 174-75 (1989) (quoting State v. Hall, 672 P.2d 854, 858 (Cal. 1983)). 2016At this stage, it is the trial court’s responsibility to undertake “ ‘a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations in light of the circumstances of the case.’ ” People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 174-75 (1989) (quoting State v. Hall, 672 P.2d 854, 858 (Cal. 1983)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2016At this stage, it is the trial court’s responsibility to undertake “ ‘a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations in light of the circumstances of the case.’ ” People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 174-75 (1989) (quoting State v. Hall, 672 P.2d 854, 858 (Cal. 1983)). 2016At this stage, it is the trial court’s responsibility to undertake “ ‘a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor’s explanations in light of the circumstances of the case.’ ” People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 174-75 (1989) (quoting State v. Hall, 672 P.2d 854, 858 (Cal. 1983)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Easleygreen2 sentences2016Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363 ; People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 324 (2000). ¶ 24 At the third stage, the trial court makes the ultimate determination of whether the party opposing the challenge has made the required showing of purposeful discrimination. 2016Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363 ; People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 324 (2000). ¶ 24 At the third stage, the trial court makes the ultimate determination of whether the party opposing the challenge has made the required showing of purposeful discrimination. | 2 | 2 |
Heastie v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2025An instructional error warrants a new trial only if the error results in “serious prejudice to a party’s right to a fair trial.” Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 543 (2007). ¶ 31 To preserve a claim of instructional error, the party opposing the instruction must both (1) object when the instruction is offered and (2) submit an alternate version of the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Suttongreen2 sentences1996It is up to the party opposing the privilege to demonstrate its need for disclosure, and the need must amount to more than a "mere desire to cross-examine." People v. Sutton, 260 Ill.App.3d 949, 958 , 197 Ill.Dec. 867, 874 , 631 N.E.2d 1326, 1333 (1994). 1996It is up to the party opposing the privilege to demonstrate its need for disclosure, and the need must amount to more than a "mere desire to cross-examine.” People v. Sutton, 260 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Deskinsgreen2 sentences1987See In re Estate of Deskins (1984), 128 Ill. 1987See In re Estate of Deskins (1984), 128 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. Davis
green
2 sentences2016Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363 ; People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 324 (2000). ¶ 24 At the third stage, the trial court makes the ultimate determination of whether the party opposing the challenge has made the required showing of purposeful discrimination. 2016Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363 ; People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 324 (2000). ¶ 24 At the third stage, the trial court makes the ultimate determination of whether the party opposing the challenge has made the required showing of purposeful discrimination. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Marriage of Schlam
green
2 sentences2004Schlam, 271 Ill.App.3d at 793 , 207 Ill.Dec. 889 , 648 N.E.2d at 349 . 2004Schlam, 271 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2002Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 97 , 90 L. 2002Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 97 , 90 L. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Collins v. Utley
green
2 sentences1988Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 505.5, at 259 (4th ed. 1984).) An exception exists, however, where the party opposing the privilege was present as an agent of the client in the transaction at issue. ( In re Estate of Busse (1947), 332 Ill. 1988(In re Estate of Busse (1947), 332 Ill. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Baumrucker v. Express Cab Dispatch, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Baumrucker v. Express Cab Dispatch, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 161278, ¶ 63 . ¶ 32 Here, Beckham’s attorney objected to Petermann’s submitted “issues instruction,” stating: “I don’t want the issues instruction to be given at all because the Court found the defendant liable. 11 I’m objecting to Defendant’s Number 8, for the record.” The trial court recognized Beckham’s concern with the instruction but stated that it would be given over his objection. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Local 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio
green
1 sentence1996The privilege will not yield for purposes of a mere "fishing expedition [citation], nor upon bare speculation that the information may possibly prove useful." Dole, 870 F.2d at 373 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean
green
2 sentences1987However, if the proponent of the presumption introduces sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the burden of going forward with the evidence on that issue shifts to the party opposing the presumption. 2 (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63 , 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77 .) Thus, the application of a presumption in a given case is a question of law which must be decided in the first instance by the trial court. 1987However, if the proponent of the presumption introduces sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the burden of going forward with the evidence on that issue shifts to the party opposing the presumption. 2 (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63 , 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77 .) Thus, the application of a presumption in a given case is a question of law which must be decided in the first instance by the trial court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.