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 1988–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2014Mitchell, 152 Ill. 2d at 321 . ¶ 47 Here, the record reflects that the trial judge interrupted defense counsel during his closing argument to indicate that the court's notes included the deviation in Avila's testimony, thereby showing the testimony had not been forgotten. 2014Mitchell, 152 Ill. 2d at 321 . ¶ 42 Here, the record reflects that the trial judge interrupted defense counsel during his closing argument to indicate that the court's notes included the deviation in Avila's testimony, thereby showing the testimony had not been forgotten. | 4 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Stokes
green
2 sentences2017App. 3d at 648 , 228 Ill.Dec. 566 , 689 N.E.2d 625 , distinguishable where in that case, the trial judge interrupted defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness and stated that the cross-examination was driving him " 'crazy.' " The judge also suggested that maybe he could do a better job than defense counsel and told the jury that they could ignore defense counsel's cross-examination of another witness: " 'I don't know where we are going. 2017App. 3d at 648 , 228 Ill.Dec. 566 , 689 N.E.2d 625 , distinguishable where in that case, the trial judge interrupted defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness and stated that the cross-examination was driving him " 'crazy.' " The judge also suggested that maybe he could do a better job than defense counsel and told the jury that they could ignore defense counsel's cross-examination of another witness: " 'I don't know where we are going. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Bowie
green
2 sentences1988App. 3d 177, 180 , 343 N.E.2d 713 .) In Bowie, the record further showed that the judge did not remember what the crux of the defense was when he entered judgment. 1988App. 3d at 1051.) In a third case, the trial judge interrupted defense counsel’s closing argument and stated, “Who said so? *** I didn’t hear that.” (People v. Bowie (1976), 36 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.