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 2 courts 1955–2023 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. Schottgreen1 sentence2023In an attempt to avoid forfeiture, the State relies on the rule that when “ ‘the trial court is reversed by the Appellate Court and the appellee in that court brings the case here for further review, he may raise any question properly presented by the record to sustain the judgment of the trial court, even though those questions were not raised or argued in the Appellate Court.’ ” People v. Schott, 145 Ill. 2d 188, 201 (1991) (quoting Mueller v. Elm Park Hotel Co., 391 Ill. 391, 399 (1945)). | 1 | 1 |
Mueller v. Elm Park Hotel Co.green1 sentence2023In an attempt to avoid forfeiture, the State relies on the rule that when “ ‘the trial court is reversed by the Appellate Court and the appellee in that court brings the case here for further review, he may raise any question properly presented by the record to sustain the judgment of the trial court, even though those questions were not raised or argued in the Appellate Court.’ ” People v. Schott, 145 Ill. 2d 188, 201 (1991) (quoting Mueller v. Elm Park Hotel Co., 391 Ill. 391, 399 (1945)). | 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. Miraglia
green
2 sentences2007In People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill. 2007In People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston
green
1 sentence2020The State maintains that the federal doctrine is better suited for use in cases involving Act violations because it arose out of labor law, a context that is more similar to the employment discrimination claim underlying this litigation. ¶ 23 Although it is true that the Court’s decision in John Wiley, 376 U.S. 543 , held the corporate successor liability doctrine could bind the successor company in the corporate merger to the arbitration provisions, that decision had two critical considerations missing from the instant appeal. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences1991(E.g., People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1 , 538 N.E.2d 453 .) In Young, the court held that testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even if uncorroborated, if it convinces the trier of fact of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 1991(E.g., People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1 , 538 N.E.2d 453 .) In Young, the court held that testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even if uncorroborated, if it convinces the trier of fact of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Woith
neutral
1 sentence1987To invoke the exception successfully it must be shown that the witness told the same story prior to the existence of the motive or prior to the time of the alleged fabrication. ( 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , 288 N.E.2d 363 ; People v. Woith (1984), 126 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences1987(People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , 288 N.E.2d 363 .) The State relies on an exception which allows evidence of prior consistent statements to rebut a charge or inference that a witness was motivated to give false testimony or that his testimony was recently fabricated. 1987(People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , 288 N.E.2d 363 .) The State relies on an exception which allows evidence of prior consistent statements to rebut a charge or inference that a witness was motivated to give false testimony or that his testimony was recently fabricated. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Litberg
green
1 sentence1965People v. Litberg, 413 Ill 132, 108 NE2d 468 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
The People v. Angelica
neutral
1 sentence1955(People v. Day, 404 Ill. 268 ; People v. Angelica, 358 Ill. 621 .) There is no question that the State was permitted to prove the crime alleged occurred on June 27, rather than on June 28. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
People v. Lawrence Day
green
1 sentence1955(People v. Day, 404 Ill. 268 ; People v. Angelica, 358 Ill. 621 .) There is no question that the State was permitted to prove the crime alleged occurred on June 27, rather than on June 28. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.