7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Baileygreen2 sentences2010See Bailey, 167 Ill. 2d at 226 . 2010See Bailey, 167 Ill. 2d at 226 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Relerford
green
2 sentences2020In its analysis regarding whether the “communicates to or about” provision fit within the true threat exception, the court stated that “[t]he prohibition against distressing communications to or about a person stands separate and apart from the proscription against threats” and, “even assuming that statements which negligently convey a threat are not protected, a course of conduct based on such statements could be prosecuted under the threat portion of subsection (a).” Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 39 . 2019In its analysis regarding whether the “communicates to or about” provision fit within the true threat exception, the court stated that “[t]he prohibition against distressing communications to or about a person stands separate and apart from the proscription against threats” and, “even assuming that statements - 20 - No. 1-16-0184 which negligently convey a threat are not protected, a course of conduct based on such statements could be prosecuted under the threat portion of subsection (a).” Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 39 . | 2 | 2019–2020 |
People v. SUCIC
green
2 sentences2020“In - 11 - addressing a facial overbreadth challenge, the first task is to determine whether the statute reaches constitutionally protected speech ***.” Id. ¶ 59 Although the supreme court in Relerford found that the “communicates to or about” phrase in subsection (a) did not fall within the true threat exception and concluded that it was overbroad in violation of the first amendment, it nevertheless determined that the “threats” provision was separate from the “communicates to or about” provision and implied that it could form the requisite course of conduct prohibited by subsection (a). 2019“In addressing a facial overbreadth challenge, the first task is to determine whether the statute reaches constitutionally protected speech ***.” Id. ¶ 59 Although the supreme court in Relerford found that the “communicates to or about” phrase in subsection (a) did not fall within the true threat exception and concluded that it was overbroad in violation of the first amendment, it nevertheless determined that the “threats” provision was separate from the “communicates to or about” provision and implied that it could form the requisite course of conduct prohibited by subsection (a). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
City of Chicago v. Morales
green
2 sentences2002Morales , 527 U.S. at 55 , 144 L. 2002Morales , 527 U.S. at 55 , 144 L. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Fox
green
2 sentences1996Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 , 106 L. 1996Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 , 106 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.