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 2018–2026 5 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 sentences2026See People v. Maggette, 195 Ill. 2d 336, 350 (2001) (neither a finger nor hand is an object for purposes of the contact clause of the statutory definition of sexual penetration). 2022Besides the intrusion clause’s “into” criterion, it differs from the contact clause based on what is used to penetrate the victim. ¶ 20 In People v. Maggette, 195 Ill. 2d 336 , 747 N.E.2d 339 (2001), our supreme court addressed the differences between the “contact” and “intrusion” clauses within the “sexual - 10 - penetration” definition. | 1 | 7 |
People v. Maggettegreen2 sentences2022Even though this court had already held a finger cannot be an object for purposes of the contact clause (Maggette, 311 Ill. 2021Moreover, defendant was charged under section 11-1.40(a)(1) of the Criminal Code. - 59 - another case, People v. Maggette, 311 Ill. App. 3d 388, 397 (2000), that a body part such as a finger is not an “object” within the context of the contact clause of the statutory definition of sexual penetration. | 1 | 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. James
green
2 sentences2026Rigg, 2024 IL App (2d) 230136-U, ¶ 60 ; James, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 1068 ; Hobbs, 2022 IL App (4th) 210471-U, ¶ 27 . 2022App. 3d at 397 ), the State opted to proceed under the contact clause rather than the intrusion clause and “the jury was instructed ‘[t]he term “sexual penetration” means any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of one person and an object or finger.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) James, 331 Ill. | 4 | 2021–2026 |
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.