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 2015–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Isaiah D.green2 sentences2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not 17 No. 1-17-0152 violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding 2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding in Patterson is a | 2 | 2 |
In re A.P.green2 sentences2015See A.P., 2014 IL App (1st) 140327, ¶¶ 16-24 . 2015See A.P., 2014 IL App (1st) 140327, ¶¶ 16-24 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Shermaine S.
green
2 sentences2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not 17 No. 1-17-0152 violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding 2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding in Patterson is a | 4 | 2015–2017 |
People v. Fountain
green
2 sentences2015Thus, because in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence of commitment until the age of 21 years did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine's challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution. ¶ 32 As an appellate court, we are required to follow supreme court precedent on an issue "unless and until that conclusion is revisited by our supreme court or overruled by the United States Supreme Court." Peo 2015Thus, because in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence of commitment until the age of 21 years did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine's challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution. ¶ 32 As an appellate court, we are required to follow supreme court precedent on an issue "unless and until that conclusion is revisited by our supreme court or overruled by the United States Supreme Court." Peo | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not 17 No. 1-17-0152 violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding 2017In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421 , ¶ 31). ¶ 44 Respondent argues that this holding in Patterson is a | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2015In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: "[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine's challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution." Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421, ¶ 31 . ¶ 59 Respondent urges that our supreme court's statement that the proportionate penalties clause is "co-extensiv 2015In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: “[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held - 14 - that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.” Shermaine S., 2015 IL App (1st) 142421, ¶ 31 . ¶ 59 Respondent urges that our supreme court’s statement that the proportionate penalties clause is “co-e | 2 | 2015–2015 |
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.