7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Felzak v. Hrubygreen2 sentences2007See 210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7) (“[p]oints not argued are waived”); Felzak v. Hruby, 367 Ill. 2007See 210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7) (“[p]oints not argued are waived”); Felzak v. Hruby, 367 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen1 sentence2023People v. Green, 2012 IL App (4th) 101034, ¶ 40 (the defendant failed to show cause and prejudice by supporting a claim raised in a prior post-conviction petition with additional evidence). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Orangegreen1 sentence2023Orange, 195 Ill. 2d at 450 (the defendant failed to show cause because the proffered evidence was already submitted in a previous post-conviction petition in support of essentially the same claim). ¶ 18 Further, Reed cannot establish prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Patelgreen2 sentences2022Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶¶ 30-31, 43-44 . ¶ 54 In both cases, the court applied the Reed standard, concluding that the defendant must provide “ ‘new, material, noncumulative evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that - 18 - No. 1-19-1101 a trial would probably result in acquittal.’ ” Patel, 2021 IL App (3d) 170337, ¶ 19 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ); Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶ 42 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ). 2022Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶¶ 30-31, 43-44 . ¶ 54 In both cases, the court applied the Reed standard, concluding that the defendant must provide “ ‘new, material, noncumulative evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that - 18 - No. 1-19-1101 a trial would probably result in acquittal.’ ” Patel, 2021 IL App (3d) 170337, ¶ 19 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ); Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶ 42 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences2009See People v. Rhodes, 386 Ill.App.3d 649, 657 , 326 Ill.Dec. 118 , 899 N.E.2d 335 (2008) (lack of objection caused no prejudice and did not affect outcome of trial). 2009See People v. Rhodes, 386 Ill.App.3d 649, 657 , 326 Ill.Dec. 118 , 899 N.E.2d 335 (2008) (lack of objection caused no prejudice and did not affect outcome of trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Reed
green
2 sentences2022Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶¶ 30-31, 43-44 . ¶ 54 In both cases, the court applied the Reed standard, concluding that the defendant must provide “ ‘new, material, noncumulative evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that - 18 - No. 1-19-1101 a trial would probably result in acquittal.’ ” Patel, 2021 IL App (3d) 170337, ¶ 19 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ); Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶ 42 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ). 2022Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶¶ 30-31, 43-44 . ¶ 54 In both cases, the court applied the Reed standard, concluding that the defendant must provide “ ‘new, material, noncumulative evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that - 18 - No. 1-19-1101 a trial would probably result in acquittal.’ ” Patel, 2021 IL App (3d) 170337, ¶ 19 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ); Rocha, 2021 IL App (1st) 191714-U, ¶ 42 (quoting Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 ). | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Smith v. Murray
green
2 sentences2009Ed. 2d 434 , 106 S. Ct. 2661 (1986), the Supreme Court refined the Reed standard for cause as it pertains to subsequent legal developments. “[T]he question is not whether subsequent legal developments have made counsel’s task easier,” said the Court, “but whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith, All U.S. at 537, 91 L. 2009Ed. 2d 434 , 106 S. Ct. 2661 (1986), the Supreme Court refined the Reed standard for cause as it pertains to subsequent legal developments. “[T]he question is not whether subsequent legal developments have made counsel’s task easier,” said the Court, “but whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith, All U.S. at 537, 91 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.