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 1906–2022 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. Maggettegreen2 sentences2011For a variance between the charging instrument and the proof at trial to be fatal, the difference "must be material and be of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his or her defense, or expose the defendant to double jeopardy." People v. Maggette, 195 Ill.2d 336, 351 , 254 Ill.Dec. 299 , 747 N.E.2d 339 (2001). 2011For a variance between the charging instrument and the proof at trial to be fatal, the difference "must be material and be of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his or her defense, or expose the defendant to double jeopardy." People v. Maggette, 195 Ill.2d 336, 351 , 254 Ill.Dec. 299 , 747 N.E.2d 339 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rothermelgreen2 sentences2011"Struck" About the Body ¶ 66 Defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving every element as charged in the indictment because it did not introduce evidence that defendant "struck" Lee "about the body." The State argues that defendant's claim is *1260 really a variance claim, rather than a "failure of proof" argument, and we agree. ¶ 67 The State "must prove the essential elements of the charging instrument." People v. Rothermel, 88 Ill.2d 541, 544 , 59 Ill.Dec. 93 , 431 N.E.2d 378 (1982). 2011"Struck" About the Body ¶ 66 Defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving every element as charged in the indictment because it did not introduce evidence that defendant "struck" Lee "about the body." The State argues that defendant's claim is *1260 really a variance claim, rather than a "failure of proof" argument, and we agree. ¶ 67 The State "must prove the essential elements of the charging instrument." People v. Rothermel, 88 Ill.2d 541, 544 , 59 Ill.Dec. 93 , 431 N.E.2d 378 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Boardgreen1 sentence1983See also Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (1981), 86 Ill.2d 390, 400 ; Willowbrook Development Corp. v. Pollution Control Board (1981), 92 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. Espinoza
green
1 sentence2022People v. Espinoza, 2015 IL 118218, ¶ 15 ; People v. Stephenson, 2016 IL App (1st) 142031 , ¶ 16. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Stephenson
green
1 sentence2022People v. Espinoza, 2015 IL 118218, ¶ 15 ; People v. Stephenson, 2016 IL App (1st) 142031 , ¶ 16. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Citizens Utilities Co. v. Pollution Control Board
neutral
1 sentence1987(Citizens Utilities Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1985), 134 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Willowbrook Development Corp. v. Pollution Control Board
green
1 sentence1983See also Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (1981), 86 Ill.2d 390, 400 ; Willowbrook Development Corp. v. Pollution Control Board (1981), 92 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Monsanto Co. v. Pollution Control Board
green
2 sentences1983(Monsanto Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 276, 289-90 . 1983Our supreme court has held that the decision whether to grant a variance from an environmental regulation is quasi-adjudicatory, although the imposition of conditions on the variance is rule making. ( Monsanto Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1977), 67 Ill.2d 276, 289-90 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bluett v. County of Cook
green
1 sentence1982(Bluett v. County of Cook (1958), 19 Ill. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Molex, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board
green
1 sentence1973We believe that the legislature intentionally omitted the provisions of section 33(b) from applying to a variance hearing under section 37; and, therefore, under a strict interpretation of the Act the Board does not have the power to impose a penalty as a condition to granting a variance under the Environmental Protection Act.” 293 N.E.2d at 732 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
City of Mattoon v. Environmental Protection Agency
neutral
2 sentences1973Citizens Utilities was also followed in City of Mattoon v. Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Ill.App.3d 259 , 296 N.E.2d 383 (4th Dist, 1973), which case reached the same holding as Citizens Utilities and Molex. 1973Citizens Utilities was also followed in City of Mattoon v. Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Ill.App.3d 259 , 296 N.E.2d 383 (4th Dist, 1973), which case reached the same holding as Citizens Utilities and Molex. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Hall v. Jones
green
1 sentence1933In Hall v. Jones, 32 Ill. 38 , where the note upon which judgment was confessed was for the principal sum of $2,000 and the declaration averred it to be for $1,000, the court held the variance was such an error as was released by the cognovit. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Hall v. Hamilton
neutral
1 sentence1933Hall v. Hamilton, supra, was a case where the declaration claimed damages to the amount of $614; the cognovit confessed $634 and judgment was entered for the latter amount; also, the cognovit was entitled in the circuit court of Cook county, while it was filed in the superior court of such county. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Guedel v. People
neutral
1 sentence1906In Guedel v. People, 43 Ill. 226 , in discussing the doctrine of variance, this court said (p. 229) : “It has its origin in that tenderness of the law for human life which requires that a prisoner on trial for murder shall be fully informed by the indictment of the precise nature of the charge he is called to meet.” Further along, on the same page, it is said: “The mode in which the killing was accomplished is an essential part of the indictment, and if two indictménts allege modes of killing so substantially unlike that the evidence necessary to sustain the one would not be admissible under t | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.