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 1998–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2019To resolve this ambiguity, the State invokes the doctrine of ejusdem generis and asserts that the word “other” in the phrase “other public official or employee” should be interpreted to mean “other such like.” See People v. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d 130, 138 (2002) (discussing doctrine of ejusdem generis). 2018To resolve this ambiguity, the State invokes the doctrine of ejusdem generis and asserts that the word “other” in the phrase “other public official or employee” should be interpreted to mean “other such like.” See People v. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d 130, 138 (2002) (discussing doctrine of ejusdem generis). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Abstongreen2 sentences2008The State invokes the doctrine of invited error, which provides: “where the trial court’s course of action is taken at defendant’s suggestion and the defendant thereafter acquiesces in the court’s expressed course of conduct, the defendant should be precluded from raising such course of conduct as error on appeal.” People v. Abston, 263 Ill. 2008The State invokes the doctrine of invited error, which provides: "where the trial court's course of action is taken at defendant's suggestion and the defendant thereafter acquiesces in the court's expressed course of conduct, the defendant should be precluded from raising such course of conduct as error on appeal." People v. Abston, 263 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences1998People v. Lewis, 52 Ill. 1998People v. Lewis, 52 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
DePrizio v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital Ass'ngreen1 sentence2022See Deprizio v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital Ass’n, 2014 IL App (1st) 123206, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bushgreen1 sentence2019More specifically, “when a defendant procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is improper, [he] cannot contest the admission on appeal.” People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Detention of Swopegreen1 sentence2019Id. ¶ 63; People v. Diggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 142088, ¶ 16 . ¶ 26 In response to defendant’s invocation of the plain-error doctrine, the State invokes the rule of invited error, or acquiescence, which prevents a party from “complain[ing] of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pricegreen1 sentence2014People v. Price, 404 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. Diggins
green
1 sentence2019Id. ¶ 63; People v. Diggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 142088, ¶ 16 . ¶ 26 In response to defendant’s invocation of the plain-error doctrine, the State invokes the rule of invited error, or acquiescence, which prevents a party from “complain[ing] of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Knight
green
1 sentence2014Id. ¶ 19 If the State invokes the privilege against disclosure of the surveillance location, the State has the initial burden to demonstrate that the privilege applies. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.