8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 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. Suttongreen2 sentences2010See People v. Sutton, 233 Ill.2d 89, 98 , 330 Ill.Dec. 198 , 908 N.E.2d 50 (2009) ("The State also argued that the Sutton II court should apply the palpably erroneous exception to the law of the case doctrine, which allows a reviewing court to depart from the doctrine if the court determines that its prior decision was palpably erroneous"). 2010See People v. Sutton, 233 Ill.2d 89, 98 , 330 Ill.Dec. 198 , 908 N.E.2d 50 (2009) ("The State also argued that the Sutton II court should apply the palpably erroneous exception to the law of the case doctrine, which allows a reviewing court to depart from the doctrine if the court determines that its prior decision was palpably erroneous"). | 2 | 2 |
Alwin v. Village of Wheelinggreen2 sentences2010See Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. 2010See Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Suttongreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 889, 894 , 874 N.E.2d 212 (2007), this court referred to the palpably erroneous exception without the new trial qualifier. 2010App. 3d 889, 894 , 874 N.E.2d 212 (2007), this court referred to the palpably erroneous exception without the new trial qualifier. | 2 | 2 |
Norris v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen1 sentence2013See Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2010The supreme court has also said that the law-of-the-case doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided" and is "not a limit on their power." People v. Patterson, 154 Ill.2d 414, 468 , 182 111. 2010The supreme court has also said that the law-of-the-case doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided” and is “not a limit on their power.” People v. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414, 468 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Radwill v. Manor Care of Westmont, IL, LLC
green
2 sentences2025However, that does not exclude the possibility that subsection (b) was also a lesser-included offense pursuant to the charging instrument approach. ¶ 58 As part of considering whether the palpably-erroneous exception to the law-of-the case-doctrine applies, we must also consider whether our previous decision “would work a manifest injustice.” Radwill, 2013 IL App (2d) 120957, ¶ 12 . 2013Radwill, 2013 IL App (2d) 120957, ¶ 12 . | 2 | 2013–2025 |
People v. JACOBAZZI
green
2 sentences2010Jacobazzi, 398 Ill. 2010Jacobazzi, 398 Ill. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Stallman v. Youngquist
green
1 sentence1989App. 3d 683, 689 , rev’d on other grounds (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 267 , the court noted that in its first appellate decision, it recognized the parent-child tort-immunity doctrine as the law in Illinois, but it reversed this decision in its second opinion, applying the palpably erroneous standard. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States Casualty Co. v. Sabich
neutral
1 sentence1989In Thomason v. Chicago Motor Coach Co. (1939), 298 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stallman v. Youngquist
green
1 sentence1989In Stallman v. Youngquist (1987), 152 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.