8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2025 4 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. Milnergreen1 sentence2025The hearing being “reopened” is the conditions hearing under section 110-5(a), which directs the trial court to a set of factors to consider in “determining which conditions of pretrial release, if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.” (Emphasis added.) 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2022); see Milner, 2024 IL App (1st) 241284, ¶ 37 (“The words ‘if any’ make clear that one possible result of such a hearing is that the cour | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitmoregreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807 (State may petition for denial of pretrial release of defendants who were ordered released on bond but still detained when the Act went into effect); People v. Davidson, 2023 IL App (2d) 230344, ¶ 18 (“Defendant made the decision to seek reconsideration of his pretrial release under the Act, whereby the court could either order his release with nonmonetary conditions or, upon the State’s petition, deny his release altogether.” (Emphasis in original.)); People v. Downey, 2023 IL App (4th) 230961-U, ¶ 17 (holding the State is authorized to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stockgreen1 sentence2024See 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶¶ 5, 17 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807 (State may petition for denial of pretrial release of defendants who were ordered released on bond but still detained when the Act went into effect); People v. Davidson, 2023 IL App (2d) 230344, ¶ 18 (“Defendant made the decision to seek reconsideration of his pretrial release under the Act, whereby the court could either order his release with nonmonetary conditions or, upon the State’s petition, deny his release altogether.” (Emphasis in original.)); People v. Downey, 2023 IL App (4th) 230961-U, ¶ 17 (holding the State is authorized to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2024Carpenter, 2024 IL App (1st) 240037, ¶ 21 (under an abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts are not to substitute their judgment in lieu of the circuit court’s decision merely because we would have balanced the appropriate factors differently). ¶ 88 In sum, we do not find that the circuit court erred in concluding that the State’s petition had satisfied its burden on all three elements of its petition. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nahasgreen1 sentence1974(People v. Nahas, 9 Ill.App.3d 570, 575-76 (1973).) Therefore, approval by the assistant State’s Attorney satisfied the requirement of the statute and, coupled with the consent of the informer, fully complied with the conditions of exception to the eavesdropping statute. | 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. Burke
green
1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 22 As noted above, defendant’s notice of appeal listed the requested relief as a new conditions hearing, setting reasonable capable conditions of relief, and provided the grounds for appeal by checking the “other” box and provided an explanation but no legal argument or citation to authority to support the explanation provided. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence1982App. 3d 635 , 415 N.E.2d 17 .) Because the conditions of the rule were not complied with by the State, we dismiss the State’s appeal in the case of defendant McCall. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Illinois Coal Operators Ass'n v. Pollution Control Board
green
1 sentence1981This court stated: “In Illinois Coal Operators Association v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 305 , this court reviewed certain noise pollution regulations of the Board, and upheld them because they were not clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Barrett v. Barrett
green
2 sentences1932(Barrett v. Barrett, 255 Ill. 332 ; Dime Savings and Trust Co. v. Watson, 254 id. 419 ; Reid v. Voorhees, 216 id. 236; Owsley v. Harrison, 190 id. 235; Lawrence v. Smith, 163 id. 149.) The conditions in this clause of the will applicable to the heirs of the widow and their heirs are the same as those applicable to her. 1932(Barrett v. Barrett, 255 Ill. 332 ; Dime Savings and Trust Co. v. Watson, 254 id. 419 ; Reid v. Voorhees, 216 id. 236; Owsley v. Harrison, 190 id. 235; Lawrence v. Smith, 163 id. 149.) The conditions in this clause of the will applicable to the heirs of the widow and their heirs are the same as those applicable to her. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.