56 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 12 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. Patrickgreen2 sentences2023See People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77-78 (2009) (any possible harm flowing from the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine to bar impeachment by a prior conviction is speculative absent defendant’s testimony and prosecution’s attempt to impeach via those prior convictions). 5 ¶ 20 Defendant’s remaining contentions all appear to proceed from the same flawed premise: that the alleged illegality of the arrest excused his forcible resistance. 2011Averett thus reaffirmed the holding in Patrick that "a trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to rule on a motion in limine to bar evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes when it has sufficient information to make the ruling." Averett, 237 Ill.2d at 10 , 340 Ill.Dec. 180 , 927 N.E.2d 1191 (citing Patrick, 233 Ill.2d at 70-73 , 330 Ill.Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 ). | 3 | 7 |
Netto v. Goldenbergred2 sentences2014“A new trial is necessary when the cumulative effect of trial errors so deprives a party of a fair trial that the verdict might have been affected.” Netto v. Goldenberg, 266 Ill. 2014“A new trial is necessary when the cumulative effect of trial errors so deprives a party of a fair trial that the verdict might have been affected.” Netto v. Goldenberg, 266 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Luce v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010See People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 78 , 908 N.E.2d 1 (2009) (“any possible harm flowing from the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine to bar impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative absent the defendant’s testimony”), citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-43 , 83 L. 2010See People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 78 , 908 N.E.2d 1 (2009) (“any possible harm flowing from the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine to bar impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative absent the defendant’s testimony”), citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-43 , 83 L. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Pelogreen2 sentences2017App. 3d 839, 864 , 942 N.E.2d 463, 485 (2010). ¶ 71 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to bar defendant from using notebooks in which the victim made diary entries. 2017App. 3d 839, 864 , 942 N.E.2d 463, 485 (2010). ¶ 71 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to bar defendant from using notebooks in which the victim made diary entries. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cruzgreen2 sentences2010Citing primarily to People v. Cruz, 162 Ill. 2d 314, 369-70 (1994) (holding that "bloodhound" evidence is inadmissible to establish any factual proposition in a criminal proceeding because is it unreliable), defendant contends that defense counsel's performance was deficient because (1) he objected on the wrong grounds; (2) the objections were untimely because the jury had already heard Valko's testimony; and (3) defense counsel should have filed a motion in limine to bar -9- No. 2--08--0314 the testimony of Valko and Mahoney that the dog tracked defendant's scent, which led to the discovery o 2010Citing primarily to People v. Cruz, 162 Ill. 2d 314, 369-70 (1994) (holding that “bloodhound” evidence is inadmissible to establish any factual proposition in a criminal proceeding because it is unreliable), defendant contends that defense counsel’s performance was deficient because (1) he objected on the wrong grounds; (2) the objections were untimely because the jury had already heard Valko’s testimony; mid (3) defense counsel should have filed a motion in limine to bar the testimony of Valko and Mahoney that the dog tracked defendant’s scent, which led to the discovery of cocaine and cannab | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ebertgreen2 sentences2015Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 “When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence.” Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. 2014Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 "When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence." Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Heidergreen1 sentence2026See People v. Minter, 2125 IL App (1st) 120958, ¶ 43 (holding the defendant did not need to make precisely the same argument to preserve it for - 19 - appeal); see also People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2008) (holding the defendant did not forfeit the issue where the trial court had an opportunity to address the issue below and the defendant did not raise a completely different objection on appeal.) Therefore, the issue was preserved for review. ¶ 67 On the merits, we determine the State’s comments regarding the receipt were not error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025“Very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction.” People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 132 (1997). ¶ 23 A trial court may properly grant a motion in limine to bar the introduction of -8- evidence in support of an affirmative defense when the defense is “unavailable as a matter of law.” People v. Henderson, 223 Ill. 2025See Henderson, 223 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025“Very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction.” People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 132 (1997). ¶ 23 A trial court may properly grant a motion in limine to bar the introduction of -8- evidence in support of an affirmative defense when the defense is “unavailable as a matter of law.” People v. Henderson, 223 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen1 sentence2025People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003) (“Under the doctrine of invited error, an accused may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caffeygreen1 sentence2024See id. at 89–90 (reviewing the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion because the rulings were made based on the specific circumstances of the case and not on broadly applicable rules). ¶ 27 Relevant to the merits, prior to trial, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to bar Vodicka from testifying to the statements in the Report regarding the unidentified truck. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, Inc.green1 sentence2024Standard of Review ¶ 50 “A ruling on a motion in limine is a determination addressing an admissibility of evidence issue likely to arise at trial[.]” Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 120 , rev’d on other grounds, 2021 IL 126748 (quoting Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, Inc., 349 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Keon C.green1 sentence2024Relying on In re Keon C., 344 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 89-90 6 (reviewing the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion because the rulings were made based on the specific circumstances of the case and not on broadly applicable rules). ¶ 26 Relevant to the merits, prior to trial, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to bar Vodicka from testifying to the statements in the Report regarding the unidentified truck. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harveygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Olivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Kraffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kilpatrickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. Montgomerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blackburn v. Illinois Central Railroad
green
2 sentences2019The court held the “circuit court did not err in allowing the jury’s verdict with regard to future medical expenses to stand.” Id. ¶ 65 In Aguilar-Santos, 2017 IL App (1st) 153593, ¶ 11 , the defendant filed a motion in limine to bar any claim for medical expenses because neither of the plaintiff’s doctors testified in their evidence depositions as to the cost of any future medical treatment and the plaintiff “identified no other witness who could testify as to the cost of treatment that [the] plaintiff may incur in the future.” The trial court revisited its order denying the motion in limine 2019The court held the “circuit court did not err in allowing the jury’s verdict with regard to future medical expenses to stand.” Id. ¶ 65 In Aguilar-Santos, 2017 IL App (1st) 153593, ¶ 11 , the defendant filed a motion in limine to bar any claim for medical expenses because neither of the plaintiff’s doctors testified in their evidence depositions as to the cost of any future medical treatment and the plaintiff “identified no other witness who could testify as to the cost of treatment that [the] plaintiff may incur in the future.” The trial court revisited its order denying the motion in limine | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Aguilar-Santos v. Briner
green
2 sentences2019The court held the “circuit court did not err in allowing the jury’s verdict with regard to future medical expenses to stand.” Id. ¶ 65 In Aguilar-Santos, 2017 IL App (1st) 153593, ¶ 11 , the defendant filed a motion in limine to bar any claim for medical expenses because neither of the plaintiff’s doctors testified in their evidence depositions as to the cost of any future medical treatment and the plaintiff “identified no other witness who could testify as to the cost of treatment that [the] plaintiff may incur in the future.” The trial court revisited its order denying the motion in limine 2019The court held the “circuit court did not err in allowing the jury’s verdict with regard to future medical expenses to stand.” Id. ¶ 65 In Aguilar-Santos, 2017 IL App (1st) 153593, ¶ 11 , the defendant filed a motion in limine to bar any claim for medical expenses because neither of the plaintiff’s doctors testified in their evidence depositions as to the cost of any future medical treatment and the plaintiff “identified no other witness who could testify as to the cost of treatment that [the] plaintiff may incur in the future.” The trial court revisited its order denying the motion in limine | 3 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Clairmont
green
2 sentences2015Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 “When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence.” Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. 2014Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 "When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence." Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
Seef v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 11-12 , 243 Ill.Dec. 806 , 724 N.E.2d 115 . 2019Id. at 11-12 , 243 Ill.Dec. 806 , 724 N.E.2d 115 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Clairmont
neutral
2 sentences2015Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 “When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence.” Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. 2014Breath-Alcohol Tests ¶ 17 "When a motorist files a motion in limine to bar breath test results, the State must establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence." Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924, ¶ 12 , 961 N.E.2d 914 (citing Ebert, 401 Ill. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Averett
green
2 sentences2011Averett thus reaffirmed the holding in Patrick that "a trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to rule on a motion in limine to bar evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes when it has sufficient information to make the ruling." Averett, 237 Ill.2d at 10 , 340 Ill.Dec. 180 , 927 N.E.2d 1191 (citing Patrick, 233 Ill.2d at 70-73 , 330 Ill.Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 ). 2011Averett thus reaffirmed the holding in Patrick that "a trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to rule on a motion in limine to bar evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes when it has sufficient information to make the ruling." Averett, 237 Ill.2d at 10 , 340 Ill.Dec. 180 , 927 N.E.2d 1191 (citing Patrick, 233 Ill.2d at 70-73 , 330 Ill.Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Morris
green
2 sentences2010At that time section 1286.320(c) stated, “ ‘A disinfectant that does not contain alcohol shall be used to clean the skin where a sample [of blood] is to be collected.’ ” Morris, 394 Ill. 2010At that time section 1286.320(c) stated, " 'A disinfectant that does not contain alcohol shall be used to clean the skin where a sample [of blood] is to be collected.' " Morris, 10 394 Ill. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Whitehead
green
2 sentences2009This court adopted the Luce reasoning in People v. Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d 425 (1987). 2009This court adopted the Luce reasoning in People v. Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d 425 (1987). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 581 , 102 Ill.Dec. 172 , 499 N.E.2d 952 (1986). 2005Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Dawson v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1998The State argued that, under Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 , 117 L. 1998The State argued that, under Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 , 117 L. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Baynes
green
2 sentences1990As part of this motion, defendant argued that the field-sobriety test results are not admissible because they fail to meet the Frye reliability standards for scientific testing, as discussed in People v. Baynes (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 225 , 430 N.E.2d 1070 (a case in which the supreme court ruled that no polygraph results are admissible). 1983After the polygraph examination on March 30, the next reference in the record to it is on June 29, after the jury was sworn in, when the State made a motion in limine to bar any reference during trial to the polygraph examination in light of “the recent case.” (Referring, we believe, to People v. Baynes (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 225 .) The court granted the motion, and told the defendant: “THE COURT: What has occurred here is, they have asked that everybody be precluded from talking about a lie detector test, okay. | 2 | 1983–1990 |
Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center
green
1 sentence2024Standard of Review ¶ 50 “A ruling on a motion in limine is a determination addressing an admissibility of evidence issue likely to arise at trial[.]” Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 120 , rev’d on other grounds, 2021 IL 126748 (quoting Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, Inc., 349 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bailey v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center
green
1 sentence2024Standard of Review ¶ 50 “A ruling on a motion in limine is a determination addressing an admissibility of evidence issue likely to arise at trial[.]” Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 120 , rev’d on other grounds, 2021 IL 126748 (quoting Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, Inc., 349 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Enbridge Energy, LLC v. Kuerth
green
1 sentence2024Thus, the record is sufficient to review the circuit court’s ruling on appeal. ¶ 14 “Generally, evidentiary motions, such as motions in limine, are directed to the trial court's sound discretion, and reviewing courts will not disturb a trial court’s evidentiary rulings absent an abuse of discretion.” Enbridge Energy (Illinois), LLC v. Kuerth, 2016 IL App (4th) 150519, ¶ 90 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Denson
green
1 sentence2024In criminal cases, it has been “held consistently that a defendant preserves an issue for review by (1) raising it in either a motion in limine or a contemporaneous trial objection, and (2) including it in the posttrial motion.” People v. Denson, 2014 IL 116231, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Petraski v. Thedos
green
1 sentence2023Dr. Leiken also testified that he was unaware of the hospital’s policies regarding calibration of the device utilized to test plaintiff’s blood serum, nor was he aware of the chain of custody of the blood sample once it was drawn, although he testified that it appeared routine clinical practices were followed. ¶8 Prior to trial, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to bar any evidence as to plaintiff’s blood alcohol level, including the testimony of Dr. Leiken. 3 Relying on the case of Petraski v. Thedos (Petraski II), 2011 IL App (1st) 103218 , plaintiff claimed that, where there is no evidence | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| McCracken & McCracken, P.C. v. Haegele green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Rios v. City of Chicago green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Aguilar green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Barrett v. FA Group, LLC green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Nelson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Wilson v. Clark green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Davis green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.