9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hilliergreen2 sentences2023While a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved claim of error for plain error, “[t]he burden is on a defendant to establish plain error; if a defendant does not argue for a plain-error analysis, then the defendant forfeits any plain-error contention.” People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 57 , 103 N.E.3d 1059 ; see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 550 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1190 (2010) (appellate court erred in reaching merits of issues where defendant forfeited issues and did not argue plain error). ¶ 35 While defendant does not argue plain error applies to any single error, he doe 2023While a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved claim of error for plain error, “[t]he burden is on a defendant to establish plain error; if a defendant does not argue for a plain-error analysis, then the defendant forfeits any plain-error contention.” People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 57 , 103 N.E.3d 1059 ; see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 550 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1190 (2010) (appellate court erred in reaching merits of issues where defendant forfeited issues and did not argue plain error). ¶ 35 While defendant does not argue plain error applies to any single error, he doe | 3 | 3 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2021People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 (2009). | 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 sentences2011Thompson, 238 Ill.2d at 613 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 . ¶ 24 Defendant recognizes that the Thompson case invalidated his former argument under the second prong of plain error. 2011Thompson, 238 Ill.2d at 613 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 . ¶ 24 Defendant recognizes that the Thompson case invalidated his former argument under the second prong of plain error. | 3 | 2010–2011 |
People v. Olaska
green
2 sentences2018People v. Olaska , 2017 IL App (2d) 150567 , ¶ 133, 419 Ill.Dec. 304 , 92 N.E.3d 1013 . 2018People v. Olaska , 2017 IL App (2d) 150567 , ¶ 133, 419 Ill.Dec. 304 , 92 N.E.3d 1013 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Gumila
green
2 sentences2018Although the plain-error doctrine allows us to reach unpreserved claims of error in certain circumstances (People v. Gumila, 2012 IL App (2d) 110761, ¶ 36 ), the burden is on the defendant to establish plain error, and, consequently, he forfeits such review when he does not argue for it (see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010) (“A defendant who fails to argue for plain-error review obviously cannot meet his burden of persuasion.”)). 2017Although the plain-error doctrine allows us to reach unpreserved claims of error in certain circumstances ( People v. Gumila , 2012 IL App (2d) 110761 , ¶ 36), 367 Ill.Dec. 182 , 981 N.E.2d 507 , the burden is on the defendant to establish plain error, and, consequently, he forfeits such review when he does not argue for it (see People v. Hillier , 237 Ill. 2d 539 , 545, 342 Ill.Dec. 1 , 931 N.E.2d 1184 (2010) ("A defendant who fails to argue for plain-error review obviously cannot meet his burden of persuasion.")). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Tatera
green
2 sentences2023While a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved claim of error for plain error, “[t]he burden is on a defendant to establish plain error; if a defendant does not argue for a plain-error analysis, then the defendant forfeits any plain-error contention.” People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 57 , 103 N.E.3d 1059 ; see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 550 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1190 (2010) (appellate court erred in reaching merits of issues where defendant forfeited issues and did not argue plain error). ¶ 35 While defendant does not argue plain error applies to any single error, he doe 2023While a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved claim of error for plain error, “[t]he burden is on a defendant to establish plain error; if a defendant does not argue for a plain-error analysis, then the defendant forfeits any plain-error contention.” People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 57 , 103 N.E.3d 1059 ; see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 550 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1190 (2010) (appellate court erred in reaching merits of issues where defendant forfeited issues and did not argue plain error). ¶ 35 While defendant does not argue plain error applies to any single error, he doe | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.