7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Eugene Robert Wallachgreen2 sentences2010See Wallach, 979 F.2d at 916 (defendant’s case does not fall under new double jeopardy standard urged by the defendant). 2010See Wallach, 979 F.2d at 916 (defendant's case does not fall under new double jeopardy standard urged by the defendant). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Straingreen2 sentences2008"As a result of today's decision, other litigants will now demand that jurors be questioned about an endless list of potential biases and asked to explain their reactions." Strain, 194 Ill. 2d at 484 (Heiple, J., dissenting). 2008“As a result of today’s decision, other litigants will now demand that jurors be questioned about an endless list of potential biases and asked to explain their reactions.” Strain, 194 Ill. 2d at 484 (Heiple, J., dissenting, joined by Bilandic, J.). | 2 | 2 |
Green v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of 2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Breit
green
2 sentences2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of 2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker
green
2 sentences1997Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 354 , 76 L. 1997Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 354 , 76 L. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Rhein v. ADT Automotive, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of 2010The State argued at oral argument that the expanded standard based on the "denial of a fair trial" premised on misconduct being so prejudicial as to cause a mistrial or new trial improperly "conflates" interests protected by the due process clause standard and the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause. 25 No. 1-09-1001 To explain the interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, "[t]he words of Justice Black are often quoted." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶9 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . " 'The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo- American system of | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Marriage of Schaefer
green
2 sentences1991The statute has been construed to acknowledge as a basis for name change the expanded standard of clear and convincing evidence necessary to the best interests of the child. ( In re Marriage of Schaefer (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 841 , 113 Ill.Dec. 725 , 515 N.E.2d 710 .) It is clear that use of the term "clear and convincing" imposes upon the petitioner an extraordinary burden under law and that the court must employ the standard imposed upon it by statute. 1991The statute has been construed to acknowledge as a basis for name change the expanded standard of clear and convincing evidence necessary to the best interests of the child. ( In re Marriage of Schaefer (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 841 , 113 Ill.Dec. 725 , 515 N.E.2d 710 .) It is clear that use of the term "clear and convincing" imposes upon the petitioner an extraordinary burden under law and that the court must employ the standard imposed upon it by statute. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.