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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 2 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. Parkergreen1 sentence2021Defendant argues that the “issue of whether jury instructions accurately conveyed to the jury the applicable law is reviewed de novo.” People v. Parker, 223 Ill. 2d 494, 501 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2009Citing People v. Smith, 191 Ill. 2d 408, 411 (2000), defendant argues that our review is de novo, because the issue is whether the uncontested facts are sufficient to prove the statutory elements of the charged crime. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Estate of Mondfrans
green
2 sentences2019The Executor contends that the court denied his section 2-619 motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, and accordingly, this court should review the denial under a de novo standard of review pursuant to In re Estate of Mondfrans, 2014 IL App (2d) 130205 . 2018The Executor contends that the court denied his section 2-619 motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, and accordingly, this court should review the denial under a de novo standard of review pursuant to In re Estate of Mondfrans , 2014 IL App (2d) 130205 , 380 Ill.Dec. 751 , 9 N.E.3d 1 . | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2024Lowe’s argues that “the interpretation of what tax Lowe’s was required to pay is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo” (citing Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Department of Revenue, 2020 IL App (1st) 191680, ¶17 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Hoffman
green
1 sentence2021April 8, 2013); Hoffman, 2012 IL App (2d) 110462, ¶ 9 . ¶ 167 The parties disagree about the standard of review. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Fields
green
1 sentence2019Defendant asserts that our review is de novo, citing Fields, 2012 IL 112438, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Holloway v. Arkansas
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 19 . ¶ 117 The parties disagree about the standard by which we are to review this issue. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.