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 2 courts 1995–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc.green2 sentences2017Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 536 (1996). 2017Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 536 (1996). | 3 | 3 |
Pate v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. 1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kinkeadgreen2 sentences1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. 1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Easleygreen1 sentence2021“To establish that the failure to request a fitness hearing prejudiced a defendant within the meaning of Strickland, a defendant must show that facts existed at the time of trial that would have raised a bona fide doubt of his ability ‘to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.’ [Citations.] ‘Defendant is entitled to relief *** only if he shows that the trial court would have found a bona fide doubt of his fitness and ordered a 5 fitness hearing if it had been apprised of the evidence now offered.’ ” Id. at 304 (quoting People v. Easley, 19 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kinkeadgreen2 sentences1998See Kinkead, 182 Ill.2d at 340 , 231 Ill.Dec. at 147 , 695 N.E.2d at 1266 . 1998See Kinkead, 182 Ill.2d at 340 , 231 Ill.Dec. at 147 , 695 N.E.2d at 1266 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kinkeadgreen2 sentences1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. 1998But see People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d 394, 410-11 , 660 N.E.2d 852, 859 (1995) (“personal observation of an accused who is on [psychotropic] medication does not replace the need for a fitness hearing”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tuduj
green
2 sentences2022People v. Tuduj, 2014 IL App (1st) 092536, ¶ 87 . 2021People v. Tuduj, 2014 IL App (1st) 092536, ¶ 87 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2021“To establish that the failure to request a fitness hearing prejudiced a defendant within the meaning of Strickland, a defendant must show that facts existed at the time of trial that would have raised a bona fide doubt of his ability ‘to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.’ [Citations.] ‘Defendant is entitled to relief *** only if he shows that the trial court would have found a bona fide doubt of his fitness and ordered a 5 fitness hearing if it had been apprised of the evidence now offered.’ ” Id. at 304 (quoting People v. Easley, 19 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Brandon
green
1 sentence1996In People v. Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d 450 (1994), defendant had been taking psychotropic medications under medical direction prior to and during his trial and sentencing. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In Re CE
green
2 sentences1995(See Gevas, 166 Ill.2d at 469-71 , 211 Ill.Dec. 511 , 655 N.E.2d 894 .) This court also has recognized the "substantially invasive nature of psychotropic substances and their significant side effects" in the context of mentally ill patients' right to refuse psychotropic medication as part of their treatment. ( In re C.E. (1994), 161 Ill.2d 200, 214 , 204 Ill.Dec. 121 , 641 N.E.2d 345 ; see also Gutheil & Appelbaum, "Mind Control," "Synthetic Sanity," "Artificial Competence," and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication, 12 Hofstra L.Rev. 77 (1983).) We conclude t 1995(See Gevas, 166 Ill.2d at 469-71 , 211 Ill.Dec. 511 , 655 N.E.2d 894 .) This court also has recognized the "substantially invasive nature of psychotropic substances and their significant side effects" in the context of mentally ill patients' right to refuse psychotropic medication as part of their treatment. ( In re C.E. (1994), 161 Ill.2d 200, 214 , 204 Ill.Dec. 121 , 641 N.E.2d 345 ; see also Gutheil & Appelbaum, "Mind Control," "Synthetic Sanity," "Artificial Competence," and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication, 12 Hofstra L.Rev. 77 (1983).) We conclude t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Gevas
green
2 sentences1995(See Gevas, 166 Ill.2d at 469-71 , 211 Ill.Dec. 511 , 655 N.E.2d 894 .) This court also has recognized the "substantially invasive nature of psychotropic substances and their significant side effects" in the context of mentally ill patients' right to refuse psychotropic medication as part of their treatment. ( In re C.E. (1994), 161 Ill.2d 200, 214 , 204 Ill.Dec. 121 , 641 N.E.2d 345 ; see also Gutheil & Appelbaum, "Mind Control," "Synthetic Sanity," "Artificial Competence," and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication, 12 Hofstra L.Rev. 77 (1983).) We conclude t 1995(See Gevas, 166 Ill.2d at 469-71 , 211 Ill.Dec. 511 , 655 N.E.2d 894 .) This court also has recognized the "substantially invasive nature of psychotropic substances and their significant side effects" in the context of mentally ill patients' right to refuse psychotropic medication as part of their treatment. ( In re C.E. (1994), 161 Ill.2d 200, 214 , 204 Ill.Dec. 121 , 641 N.E.2d 345 ; see also Gutheil & Appelbaum, "Mind Control," "Synthetic Sanity," "Artificial Competence," and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication, 12 Hofstra L.Rev. 77 (1983).) We conclude t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.