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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2026 7 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. Boosegreen2 sentences2026People v. Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 37 . 16 ¶ 59 The defendant is entitled to relief if the circuit court determines at an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel that a claim of ineffective assistance of defense counsel satisfied both prongs of the requirements of the Strickland analysis. 2025See People v. Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 37 (“[A]t an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel, a defendant is only entitled to relief upon a determination by the trial court that the defendant has established both prongs of the Strickland[ v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994),] analysis, i.e., deficiency and prejudice.” (Emphasis omitted.)). | 2 | 6 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2025See People v. Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 37 (“[A]t an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel, a defendant is only entitled to relief upon a determination by the trial court that the defendant has established both prongs of the Strickland[ v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994),] analysis, i.e., deficiency and prejudice.” (Emphasis omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Peelgreen1 sentence2025Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 23 ; see People v. Peel, 2018 IL App (4th) 160100, ¶ 39 . ¶ 103 This court in Boose agreed, holding that “at an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel, a defendant is only entitled to relief upon a determination by the trial court that the defendant has established both prongs of the Strickland analysis, i.e., deficiency and prejudice.” (Emphases in original.) Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 37 . ¶ 104 III. | 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. Harkey
green
2 sentences2025Harkey, 2025 IL App (4th) 230523, ¶ 79 . ¶ 38 If a motion for new trial is filed by Krankel counsel, the defendant is entitled to relief if the circuit court determines at an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel that a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel satisfied both prongs of the requirements of the Strickland 4 analysis. 2025Harkey, 2025 IL App (4th) 230523, ¶ 79 . ¶ 38 If a motion for new trial is filed by Krankel counsel, the defendant is entitled to relief if the circuit court determines at an adversarial evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Krankel that a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel satisfied both prongs of the requirements of the Strickland 4 analysis. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2025People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 98 . ¶ 25 As noted above, defendant contends the trial court erred by treating the preliminary Krankel hearing as an adversarial evidentiary hearing on the merits of defendant’s claim and denying him representation in arguing that claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
green
1 sentence1994Ed. 2d at 505 , 105 S. Ct. at 1494 .) While the Court determined that procedural due process requires oral or written notice, a pretermination opportunity to respond, and post-termination administrative procedures at a meaningful time, it stated that a full adversarial evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.