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 1980–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lefkowitz v. Turleygreen1 sentence1980In reaching its conclusion, the court enunciated the following principles: "[T]he Fifth Amendment `not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.' Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wolff v. McDonnell
green
2 sentences2022Nonetheless, we will address plaintiff’s argument, as “forfeiture is a limitation on -7- the parties and not on the appellate court.” Jill Knowles Enterprises, Inc. v. Dunkin, 2017 IL App (2d) 160811, ¶ 22 . ¶ 25 The right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing is limited in that “[p]rison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits and to refuse to call witnesses that may create a risk of reprisal or undermine authority, as well as to limit access to other inmates to collect statements or to compile doc 2020Tex. 1998). 1 ¶ 57 When a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of a prisoner’s good conduct credits, Wolff held that the inmate must receive (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges, (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 418 U.S. at 563-67 . | 6 | 1992–2022 |
Ashley v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2020Plaintiff does not seek review of the appellate court’s finding concerning his declaratory judgment action. ¶ 37 After finding the plaintiff had stated claims for mandamus and for writ of certiorari, the appellate court then addressed the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon Ashley, 316 Ill. 2019Plaintiff does not seek review of the appellate court’s finding concerning his declaratory judgment action. ¶ 37 After finding the plaintiff had stated claims for mandamus and for writ of certiorari, the appellate court then addressed the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon Ashley, 316 Ill. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Baxter v. Palmigiano
green
2 sentences2002Baxter , 425 U.S. at 315 , 47 L. 2002Baxter , 425 U.S. at 315 , 47 L. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Jill Knowles Enterprises, Inc v. Dunkin
green
1 sentence2022Nonetheless, we will address plaintiff’s argument, as “forfeiture is a limitation on -7- the parties and not on the appellate court.” Jill Knowles Enterprises, Inc. v. Dunkin, 2017 IL App (2d) 160811, ¶ 22 . ¶ 25 The right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing is limited in that “[p]rison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits and to refuse to call witnesses that may create a risk of reprisal or undermine authority, as well as to limit access to other inmates to collect statements or to compile doc | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jensen v. Lick
green
1 sentence1987Other jurisdictions have accepted the EMIT test as sufficiently reliable where it was the only evidence in a prison disciplinary hearing (Jensen v. Lick (D.N.D. 1984), 589 F. Supp. 35 ) and in a parole revocation hearing (Smith v. State (1983), 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1987Other jurisdictions have accepted the EMIT test as sufficiently reliable where it was the only evidence in a prison disciplinary hearing (Jensen v. Lick (D.N.D. 1984), 589 F. Supp. 35 ) and in a parole revocation hearing (Smith v. State (1983), 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 ). 1987Other jurisdictions have accepted the EMIT test as sufficiently reliable where it was the only evidence in a prison disciplinary hearing (Jensen v. Lick (D.N.D. 1984), 589 F. Supp. 35 ) and in a parole revocation hearing (Smith v. State (1983), 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.