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.
10 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 9 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. Hilliergreen2 sentences2026However, he contends the error may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine because a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence at his resentencing was closely balanced. ¶ 39 Generally, a defendant forfeits a claim of sentencing error by failing to preserve the error through “both a contemporaneous objection and a written postsentencing motion raising the issue.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010). 2025People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 39 ; People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 547 (2010) (defendant’s fifth amendment challenge to his sex- offender evaluation was not raised at trial and was thus forfeited); People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230, ¶ 42 (defendant forfeited fourth-amendment challenge to vehicle stop by failing to raise it at trial). ¶ 43 There are a few exceptions to forfeiture. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ivanchukgreen1 sentence2025People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 39 ; People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 547 (2010) (defendant’s fifth amendment challenge to his sex- offender evaluation was not raised at trial and was thus forfeited); People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230, ¶ 42 (defendant forfeited fourth-amendment challenge to vehicle stop by failing to raise it at trial). ¶ 43 There are a few exceptions to forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petrenkogreen1 sentence2023People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490 , 502-03 (2010); 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2020) (“Any claim of substantial denial of constitutional rights not raised in the original or an amended petition is waived.”). 3 We do not have supervisory authority to excuse forfeiture caused by a defendant’s failure to include an issue in his postconviction petition. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pearsongreen2 sentences2022People v. Pearson, 88 Ill. 2d 210, 217 , 430 N.E.2d 990, 993 (1981). 2022People v. Pearson, 88 Ill. 2d 210, 217 , 430 N.E.2d 990, 993 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Austingreen1 sentence2021People v. Austin, 2017 IL App (1st) 142737, ¶ 46 (a defendant forfeits a claim of jury instruction error unless he or she objected to the instruction or offered an alternative instruction and raised the instruction issue in a posttrial motion). | 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. Thompson
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023Id. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2025People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 39 ; People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 547 (2010) (defendant’s fifth amendment challenge to his sex- offender evaluation was not raised at trial and was thus forfeited); People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230, ¶ 42 (defendant forfeited fourth-amendment challenge to vehicle stop by failing to raise it at trial). ¶ 43 There are a few exceptions to forfeiture. 2020In Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 44 , the defendant forfeited his as-applied Miller challenge by raising it for the first time on appeal, but the court did not remand for the defendant to amend his section 2-1401 petition; -4- No. 1-16-3177 rather, it affirmed the dismissal of the petition and noted that the defendant could file a successive section 2-1401 or postconviction petition. | 2 | 2020–2025 |
People v. Smart
green
1 sentence2026People v. Smart, 2025 IL 130127, ¶ 77 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.