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 2 courts 1995–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.green2 sentences2007See Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 276 Ill. 2007See Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 276 Ill. | 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. Hansen
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2020Id. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Rice
green
2 sentences1997Rice, 166 Ill. 2d at 39 , 651 N.E.2d at 1085 . 1997Rice, 166 Ill. 2d at 39 , 651 N.E.2d at 1085 . | 2 | 1995–1997 |
People v. Kent
neutral
1 sentence2020At the November 6, 2017, hearing on the parties’ motions in limine, the State represented that investigators had contact with Wesley’s family “more than once,” that Wesley’s father was hostile, and that the family had - 30 - 2020 IL App (2d) 180887 avoided attempts to serve Wesley. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Horton
green
2 sentences1995It is well settled that the testimony of a witness at a prior hearing is admissible in evidence at trial where the witness is unavailable and when ample opportunity to cross-examine existed at the prior hearing. ( People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill.2d 413, 416 , 3 Ill.Dec. 436 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill.2d 401, 411 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) It is the second element which serves as the focal point of the dispute in this case. 1995It is well settled that the testimony of a witness at a prior hearing is admissible in evidence at trial where the witness is unavailable and when ample opportunity to cross-examine existed at the prior hearing. ( People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill.2d 413, 416 , 3 Ill.Dec. 436 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill.2d 401, 411 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) It is the second element which serves as the focal point of the dispute in this case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Tennant
green
2 sentences1995It is well settled that the testimony of a witness at a prior hearing is admissible in evidence at trial where the witness is unavailable and when ample opportunity to cross-examine existed at the prior hearing. ( People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill.2d 413, 416 , 3 Ill.Dec. 436 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill.2d 401, 411 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) It is the second element which serves as the focal point of the dispute in this case. 1995It is well settled that the testimony of a witness at a prior hearing is admissible in evidence at trial where the witness is unavailable and when ample opportunity to cross-examine existed at the prior hearing. ( People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill.2d 413, 416 , 3 Ill.Dec. 436 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill.2d 401, 411 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) It is the second element which serves as the focal point of the dispute in this case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.