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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 1 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. Beardgreen2 sentences1992(People v. Beard (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 220 , 319 N.E.2d 745 .) The defendant is entitled to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, and to receive a written statement by the fact finder stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation. 1992(People v. Beard (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 220 , 319 N.E.2d 745 .) The defendant is entitled to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, and to receive a written statement by the fact finder stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Haltermangreen1 sentence2023See People v. Halterman, 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re NW
green
2 sentences2001In re N.W., 293 Ill. 2001In re N.W. , 293 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Bedenkop
green
2 sentences1997At a probation revocation hearing, the State has the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence while using only competent evidence. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(c) (West 1994); People v. Bedenkop, 252 Ill.App.3d 419, 422 , 192 Ill. 1997At a probation revocation hearing, the State has the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence while using only competent evidence. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(c) (West 1994); People v. Bedenkop, 252 Ill.App.3d 419, 422 , 192 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Harder
green
2 sentences1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 . 1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Boucher
green
2 sentences1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 . 1977People v. Harder (1975), 59 Ill. 2d 563 , 322 N.E.2d 470 ; People v. Boucher (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 225 , 311 N.E.2d 679 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. White
neutral
2 sentences1976App.2d 1 , 239 N.E.2d 854 .) In 1973 the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to provide, in section 5-6-4(c), in pertinent part: "(c) The State has the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation by the preponderance of the evidence." (Ill. 1976App. 2d 1 , 239 N.E.2d 854 .) In 1973 the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to provide, in section 5—6—4(c), in pertinent part: “(c) The State has the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation by the preponderance of the evidence.” (Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence1976The majority, citing from numerous sources, none of which supports its conclusion, holds that these time-honored procedures do not "provide any necessary or useful safeguards to the defendants in cases such as this where the fact that the prior conviction had occurred has never been denied." ( 65 Ill.2d at 164 .) The fact of no denial is completely irrelevant; this was not a proceeding where issues were framed by allegations and denials, here "the State has the burden of going forward with the evidence and proving the violation by the preponderance of the evidence" (Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Pier
green
2 sentences1976The evidence shall be presented in open court with the right of confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel.” We have held that “The consequences of a determination that the probation order has been violated are so serious that the appellate courts have surrounded the defendant at a revocation hearing with many of the same due-process safeguards that are accorded to a defendant at a trial to determine his guilt. [Citations.] Since the results of a probation revocation may be a deprivation of liberty and, consequently, as serious as the original determination of guilt, we ag 1976The evidence shall be presented in open court with the right of confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel." We have held that "The consequences of a determination that the probation order has been violated are so serious that the appellate courts have surrounded the defendant at a revocation hearing with many of the same due-process safeguards that are accorded to a defendant at a trial to determine his guilt. [Citations.] Since the results of a probation revocation may be a deprivation of liberty and, consequently, as serious as the original determination of guilt, we ag | 1 | 1976–1976 |