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 1967–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Courson v. Danville School Dist.green2 sentences2019See Courson, 333 Ill. 2018See Courson , 333 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Support of Halasgreen1 sentence2022See In re Halas, 104 Ill. 2d 83 , 92 (1984) (In contract construction, effect must be given to all language “so that provisions which appear to be conflicting or inconsistent may be reconciled and harmonized.”). | 1 | 1 |
Grant v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2020See id. at 522, 524-25 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2012Further, beyond the foreign cases cited by the trial court, review of the relevant statutory provisions and our courts’ discussion of this issue supports the trial court’s finding. ¶ 36 I believe that our supreme court’s discussion of the marital privilege in People v. Sanders, 99 Ill. 2d 262, 270 (1983), is instructive to how we should consider the privilege itself, legislative intent and policy, and foreign case law in interpreting the reach of the privilege and any exception. 2012Noting that the marital privilege results from a policy not of safeguarding the quality of evidence at trial, but from a policy of promoting family harmony, the Sanders court quoted the United States Supreme Court: “ ‘Testimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that “ ‘the public ... has a right to every man’s evidence.’ ” [Citation.] As such, they must be strictly construed and accepted “only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012Noting that the marital privilege results from a policy not of safeguarding the quality of evidence at trial, but from a policy of promoting family harmony, the Sanders court quoted the United States Supreme Court: “ ‘Testimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that “ ‘the public ... has a right to every man’s evidence.’ ” [Citation.] As such, they must be strictly construed and accepted “only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knight v. Jewett
green
2 sentences2006Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 303-15 , 834 P.2d at 699-708 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 5-14 . 2006Knight, 3 Cal. 4th at 303-15 , 834 P.2d at 699-708 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 5-14 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Pickett
green
2 sentences1983This court has held on several occasions that the waiver rule applies to constitutional questions, as well as to other issues. ( People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill.2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill.2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill.2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. 1983(People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
The PEOPLE v. Long
green
2 sentences1983This court has held on several occasions that the waiver rule applies to constitutional questions, as well as to other issues. ( People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill.2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill.2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill.2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. 1983(People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Howell
green
2 sentences1983This court has held on several occasions that the waiver rule applies to constitutional questions, as well as to other issues. ( People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill.2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill.2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill.2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. 1983(People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Precup
green
2 sentences1983This court has held on several occasions that the waiver rule applies to constitutional questions, as well as to other issues. ( People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill.2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill.2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill.2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. 1983(People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Black
green
2 sentences1983This court has held on several occasions that the waiver rule applies to constitutional questions, as well as to other issues. ( People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill.2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill.2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill.2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. 1983(People v. Precup (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 7 ; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 117 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 ; People v. Black (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 544 ; People v. Long (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 40 .) The fact that a fifth amendment right may have been involved does not put the matter beyond the reach of the waiver rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Koplin v. Thomas, Haab & Botts
green
1 sentence1967Koplin v. Thomas, Haab & Botts, 73 Ill App2d 242, 248, 219 NE2d 646 (1966). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.