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 1988–2009 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. Ferreegreen2 sentences1999"In general, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of neces sity when evidence, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, has been intro duced that the accused, without blame in occasioning or developing the situation, reasonably believed his conduct, which would otherwise be an offense, was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might have resulted from his own conduct." People v. Ferree , 221 Ill. 1999App. 3d 212, 216-17 , 581 N.E.2d 699, 702 (1991). | 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. Janik
green
2 sentences2002People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390 , 537 N.E.2d 756 (1989). 2002People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390 , 537 N.E.2d 756 (1989). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Newbolds
green
2 sentences1991(People v. Newbolds (1990), 204 Ill. 1991(See, e.g., People v. Newbolds (1990), 204 Ill. | 2 | 1991–1991 |
McDonnell v. McPartlin
green
1 sentence2009“The issue of whether a defendant is entitled to argue to the jury that the nonparty physician was negligent is separate and distinct from the issue of whether a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of sole proximate cause. * * * Whether a defendant may argue that the nonparty physician is negligent is governed by the same principles applicable to other arguments made in closing.” McDonnell, 192 Ill. 2d at 523-24 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Poulos
green
1 sentence1992App. 3d 653, 657 , 554 N.E.2d 448, 451 , Carpentier dealt with the question of whether defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of entrapment. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Unger
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Unger (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 333, 338 , 362 N.E.2d 319 , 321.) In general, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of necessity when evidence, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, has been introduced that the accused, without blame in occasioning or developing the situation, reasonably believed his conduct, which would otherwise be an offense, was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might have resulted from his own conduct. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. James
green
1 sentence1990(See People v. James (1989), 180 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1990(People v. Stewart (1984), 122 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Feagans
green
1 sentence1988(People v. Feagans (1983), 119 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.