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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mata v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Obviously, the greater the length of time between the driving and the test, the greater the potential variation between the two BACs.” Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902, 909-10 (Tex. Crim. | 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. Pratcher
green
2 sentences2004The arresting officer was "also concerned that defendant might be attempting to conceal contraband." Pratcher, 332 Ill.App.3d at 1065 , 266 Ill.Dec. 376 , 774 N.E.2d 482 . 2004The arresting officer was “also concerned that defendant might be attempting to conceal contraband.” Pratcher, 332 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Crowley v. A-North Shore Driving School
green
1 sentence2019In holding that the doctrine was inapplicable to the case, the court set forth the rule that, for res ipsa loquitur to apply, “it is necessary to prove the defendant’s control of the immediate - 52 - No. 1-18-0682 cause of the injury is exclusive; the doctrine cannot be invoked without evidence tending to establish that the injury complained of was caused by someone under defendant’s control.” Id. at 1038 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. ex re. Nerheim v. 2005 Black Chevrolet Corvette
green
1 sentence2015As a result, the State’s forfeiture complaint charged defendant with violating section 6- 303 of the Vehicle Code, which states: -7- 2015 IL App (2d) 131267 “[A]ny person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when such person’s driver’s license, permit or privilege to do so *** is revoked or suspended as provided by this Code *** except as may be specifically allowed by a *** permit *** shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” 625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Odumuyiwa
green
2 sentences2012We agreed with the State that the Secretary “may suspend a driver’s current driving privilege even after a driver’s license has been previously cancelled, noting that there is no case law or statutory authority preventing him from doing so.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 43 . 2012We also said, “we see no reason why the Secretary, in addition to cancelling a license, may not also suspend a person’s driving privilege thereby preventing a driver from applying for or reinstating a license during a specific period of time.” Id. ¶ 46 The language in Odumuyiwa applies with even greater force to persons, like defendant, who are convicted of DUI even though they are already revoked. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Bloomberg
green
1 sentence2012Persons like defendant not only would be able to escape the penalties intended for scofflaws like him, but they could also escape the provisions allowing for seizure and forfeiture of motor vehicles owned by and driven by such persons. ¶ 31 Defendant’s argument is similar to the argument made by the defendant in People v. Bloomberg, 378 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Papproth
green
1 sentence1999People v. Papproth, 56 Ill. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.