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 1 courts 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLCgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., White v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 373 Ill. 2013See, e.g., White v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 373 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Matthews
green
2 sentences2001"Illinois courts have relied on the following factors to determine whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial as a result of a discovery violation: the closeness of the evidence, the strength of the undisclosed evidence, the likelihood that prior notice would have helped the defense discredit the evidence, and the willfulness of the State in failing to disclose the new evidence." Matthews, 299 Ill.App.3d at 919 , 234 Ill.Dec. 125 , 702 N.E.2d 291 . 2001“Illinois courts have relied on the following factors to determine whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial as a result of a discovery violation: the closeness of the evidence, the strength of the undisclosed evidence, the likelihood that prior notice would have helped the defense discredit the evidence, and the willfulness of the State in failing to disclose the new evidence.” Matthews, 299 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2001Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d at 560 . 2001Weaver , 92 Ill. 2d at 560 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Secor
green
2 sentences1998People v. Secor , 279 Ill. 1998People v. Secor, 279 Ill. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Kubicheck v. Traina
green
1 sentence2025“Under the appropriate circumstances, a trial court may order a new trial as a result of a discovery violation committed by the party who prevailed in the initial trial.” Kubicheck v. Traina, 2013 IL App (3d) 110157, ¶ 29 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.