hearsay evidence rule (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

hearsay evidence rule in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1989 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Laborgreen
ill · 1985 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1987–1988
2 sentences

1988The court further found “that the facts tend more to support a finding that the plaintiff was a victim of widespread unemployment in a depressed industry, just the sort of thing unemployment compensation is supposed to cover.” Initially, we point out that the supreme court has held: “It is well established that when hearsay evidence is admitted without an objection, it is to be considered and given its natural probative effect.” (See Jackson v. Board of Review (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 501, 508 , 475 N.E.2d 879, 883 (and cases cited therein).) The Jackson court noted that the hearsay evidence rule a

1988The court further found “that the facts tend more to support a finding that the plaintiff was a victim of widespread unemployment in a depressed industry, just the sort of thing unemployment compensation is supposed to cover.” Initially, we point out that the supreme court has held: “It is well established that when hearsay evidence is admitted without an objection, it is to be considered and given its natural probative effect.” (See Jackson v. Board of Review (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 501, 508 , 475 N.E.2d 879, 883 (and cases cited therein).) The Jackson court noted that the hearsay evidence rule a

12
People v. Rogersred
ill · 1980 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989In People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , the supreme court held: “[A] witness may not testify as to statements he made out of court for the purpose of corroborating his testimony given at the trial relative to the same subject.” In People v. Rogers (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 571, 577, 578 , the supreme court stated: “It appears that no single facet of the law has been productive of as much confusion as has the application of the hearsay evidence rule. *** The definition of hearsay itself is deceptively simple and is generally accepted to be testimony of an out-of-court statement offered to est

1989In People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill.2d 374, 389 , the supreme court held: "[A] witness may not testify as to statements he made out of court for the purpose of corroborating his testimony given at the trial relative to the same subject." In People v. Rogers (1980), 81 Ill.2d 571, 577, 578 , the supreme court stated: "It appears that no single facet of the law has been productive of as much confusion as has the application of the hearsay evidence rule. * * * The definition of hearsay itself is deceptively simple and is generally accepted to be testimony of an out-of-court statement offered to est

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Novicki v. Department of Finance green
ill · 1940
2 sentences

1989(Novicki v. Department of Finance (1940), 373 Ill. 342, 344 .) Clearly, the hearsay evidence rule was not eliminated from administrative proceedings by these provisions.

1985(Novicki v. Department of Finance (1940), 373 Ill. 342 .) Thus the hearsay evidence rule applies to the administrative proceedings under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but hearsay evidence that is admitted without objection may be considered by the administrative body and by the courts on review.

31985–1989
People v. Clark green
ill · 1972
2 sentences

1989In People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , the supreme court held: “[A] witness may not testify as to statements he made out of court for the purpose of corroborating his testimony given at the trial relative to the same subject.” In People v. Rogers (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 571, 577, 578 , the supreme court stated: “It appears that no single facet of the law has been productive of as much confusion as has the application of the hearsay evidence rule. *** The definition of hearsay itself is deceptively simple and is generally accepted to be testimony of an out-of-court statement offered to est

1989In People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374, 389 , the supreme court held: “[A] witness may not testify as to statements he made out of court for the purpose of corroborating his testimony given at the trial relative to the same subject.” In People v. Rogers (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 571, 577, 578 , the supreme court stated: “It appears that no single facet of the law has been productive of as much confusion as has the application of the hearsay evidence rule. *** The definition of hearsay itself is deceptively simple and is generally accepted to be testimony of an out-of-court statement offered to est

11989–1989
People v. Wynn neutral
illappct · 1980
1 sentence

1985(See People v. Wynn (1980), 84 Ill.

11985–1985
California v. Green red
scotus · 1970
1 sentence

1974The rule is stated in 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence §650 (13th ed. 1973): “As an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, the testimony of a witness at a preliminary hearing or former trial may be allowed in evidence at a subsequent trial if a proper foundation has been laid, including a showing that the witness is no longer ‘available.’” (Emphasis added.) In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 166 , the United States Supreme Court, in discussing this issue, said: “In the present case respondent’s counsel does not appear to have been significantly limited in any way in the scope or nature of his

11974–1974

Where else courts name it

TN 14 (1972–2017) CA 11 (1939–1968) VA 11 (1958–2025) AL 11 (1942–2017) NJ 8 (1939–1970) MD 7 (1969–2002) IL 7 (1974–1989) FL 5 (1969–2021) OH 5 (1974–2017) MO 4 (1926–1991) PA 4 (1968–1986) ND 4 (1955–1984) GA 4 (1969–2015) MI 4 (2012–2020) NY 3 (1960–1993) RI 2 (2010–2011) AZ 2 (1965–1991) NC 2 (1972–2002) IN 2 (1972–1989) OR 2 (1961–1967) AR 2 (1974–1976) OK 2 (1962–2010) IA 2 (1940–1976) LA 2 (1970–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check