9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Detention of Svedagreen2 sentences2014See In re Detention of Sveda, 354 Ill. 2014See In re Detention of Sveda, 354 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In re Commitment of Fieldsgreen2 sentences2013See In re Commitment of Fields, 2012 IL App (1st) 112191, ¶ 57 (before addressing whether the plain-error rule applies, court must consider whether error occurred at all). 2013See Fields, 2012 IL App (1st) 112191, ¶ 57 (noting that decision concerning whether civil or criminal plain-error rule applies is unnecessary when no error arose at all). ¶ 21 The next issue we consider is whether respondent was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a sexually violent person. | 2 | 2 |
In re Commitment of Gavingreen2 sentences2021See Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶¶ 52-55 (noting that the criminal plain-error doctrine is appropriate for proceedings arising under the SVP Act). 2021“The criminal plain error doctrine allows us to reach a forfeited error that affects substantial rights where: (i) the evidence is so closely balanced, the jury’s guilty verdict might have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (ii) the error is so serious the defendant was denied a substantial right and, thus, a fair trial.” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (citing People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 14 ). “ ‘Our first step in plain error review is to determine whether any error occurred at all.’ ” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 2014 | 1 | 2 |
In re Commitment of Tenoriogreen2 sentences2026See In re Commitment of Tenorio, 2020 IL App (1st) 182608, ¶ 50 (applying criminal plain error to a civil commitment case). ¶ 48 The criminal plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved claim where a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. 2026See In re Commitment of Tenorio, 2020 IL App (1st) 182608, ¶ 50 (applying criminal plain error to a civil commitment case). ¶ 48 The criminal plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved claim where a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. | 1 | 1 |
In re Commitment of Curtnergreen1 sentence2025See In re Commitment of Curtner, 2012 IL App (4th) 110820, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 1 |
In re Commitment of Hardingreen1 sentence2013See Fields, 2012 IL App (1st) 112191, ¶ 57 (noting that decision concerning whether civil or criminal plain-error rule applies is unnecessary when no error arose at all). -9- 2013 IL App (2d) 120977 ¶ 21 The next issue we consider is whether respondent was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a sexually violent person. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ottingergreen1 sentence2012See In re Ottinger, 333 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. Ware
green
2 sentences2021“The criminal plain error doctrine allows us to reach a forfeited error that affects substantial rights where: (i) the evidence is so closely balanced, the jury’s guilty verdict might have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (ii) the error is so serious the defendant was denied a substantial right and, thus, a fair trial.” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (citing People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 14 ). “ ‘Our first step in plain error review is to determine whether any error occurred at all.’ ” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 2014 2021“The criminal plain error doctrine allows us to reach a forfeited error that affects substantial rights where: (i) the evidence is so closely balanced, the jury’s guilty verdict might have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (ii) the error is so serious the defendant was denied a substantial right and, thus, a fair trial.” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (citing People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 14 ). “ ‘Our first step in plain error review is to determine whether any error occurred at all.’ ” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 2014 | 3 | 2014–2021 |
People v. Curry
green
2 sentences2014People v. Curry, 2013 IL App (4th) 120724, ¶¶ 72-73 . ¶ 53 The State argues that we should apply the civil plain error doctrine to SVP Act cases. 2014People v. Curry, 2013 IL App (4th) 120724, ¶¶ 72-73 . ¶ 53 The State argues that we should apply the civil plain error doctrine to SVP Act cases. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2026Id. ¶ 47 Respondent first challenges the State’s comment that the case presented “the risk that there is another victim whose life is changed forever from being the victim of rape.” He acknowledges -14- 1-24-0128 that the court sustained his objection to the comment but contends that the State continued to press this point by concluding, “[t]he common sense, the evidence in this case, everything points to one conclusion, and it is that if this man is released from custody, there will be another victim.” Although respondent did not preserve the argument related to this statement, we may review | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Sebby
green
1 sentence2026People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2021“The criminal plain error doctrine allows us to reach a forfeited error that affects substantial rights where: (i) the evidence is so closely balanced, the jury’s guilty verdict might have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (ii) the error is so serious the defendant was denied a substantial right and, thus, a fair trial.” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (citing People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 14 ). “ ‘Our first step in plain error review is to determine whether any error occurred at all.’ ” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 2014 2021“The criminal plain error doctrine allows us to reach a forfeited error that affects substantial rights where: (i) the evidence is so closely balanced, the jury’s guilty verdict might have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (ii) the error is so serious the defendant was denied a substantial right and, thus, a fair trial.” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (citing People v. Ware, 2014 IL App (1st) 120485, ¶ 14 ). “ ‘Our first step in plain error review is to determine whether any error occurred at all.’ ” Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 2014 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.