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 2014–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hauschildgreen2 sentences2017People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 487 (2005). 21 1-11-0311 ¶ 52 As defendant correctly noted, the 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement for armed robbery was declared unconstitutional in People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 86-87 (2007) (a 15 year sentence enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm, imposed under the same armed robbery statute as in the instant case, violated the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. 2017People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 487 (2005). ¶ 52 As defendant correctly noted, the 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement for armed robbery was declared unconstitutional in People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 86-87 (2007) (a 15-year sentence enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm, imposed under the same armed robbery statute as in the instant case, violated the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. | 6 | 6 |
People v. Sharpegreen2 sentences2017People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 487 (2005). 21 1-11-0311 ¶ 52 As defendant correctly noted, the 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement for armed robbery was declared unconstitutional in People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 86-87 (2007) (a 15 year sentence enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm, imposed under the same armed robbery statute as in the instant case, violated the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. 2017People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481, 487 (2005). ¶ 52 As defendant correctly noted, the 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement for armed robbery was declared unconstitutional in People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63, 86-87 (2007) (a 15-year sentence enhancement for armed robbery while armed with a firearm, imposed under the same armed robbery statute as in the instant case, violated the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. | 6 | 6 |
Arangold Corp. v. Zehndergreen1 sentence2025To hold otherwise would undermine the well-settled principle that a statute bears a strong presumption of constitutionality and that the party challenging the statute has the burden of demonstrating the statute’s unconstitutionality.” (Emphasis omitted.) Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill. 2d 142, 156-57 (2003). ¶ 98 We conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the City summary judgment on the uniformity-clause count. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.