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 2 courts 2020–2024 4 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. Sophanavonggreen2 sentences2024See People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 (“[T]his court has noted that the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.”); People v. Marcum, 2024 IL 128687, ¶ 34 (explaining the statute at issue provided an issue was waived if not timely raised and, accordingly, the supreme court considered waiver instead of forfeiture). ¶ 14 As waiver applies, defendant’s remaining potential claim of error is for ineffective assistance of counsel. 2024See People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 (“[T]his -9- court has noted that the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.”). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Blairgreen2 sentences2024People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 37 ; People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005). 2020People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 37 ; People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Marcumgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 (“[T]his court has noted that the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.”); People v. Marcum, 2024 IL 128687, ¶ 34 (explaining the statute at issue provided an issue was waived if not timely raised and, accordingly, the supreme court considered waiver instead of forfeiture). ¶ 14 As waiver applies, defendant’s remaining potential claim of error is for ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Artisgreen1 sentence2023The Illinois Supreme Court has noted that “the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.” People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 . “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” whereas “[f]orfeiture is defined as the failure to make the timely assertion of the right.” People v. Lesley, 2018 IL 122100, ¶¶ 36, 37 ; see also Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co., 227 Ill. 2d 302 , 320 n.2 (2008) (noting that forfeiture is the failure to timely comply with procedural requirements | 1 | 1 |
Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co.green1 sentence2023The Illinois Supreme Court has noted that “the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.” People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 . “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” whereas “[f]orfeiture is defined as the failure to make the timely assertion of the right.” People v. Lesley, 2018 IL 122100, ¶¶ 36, 37 ; see also Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co., 227 Ill. 2d 302 , 320 n.2 (2008) (noting that forfeiture is the failure to timely comply with procedural requirements | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lesleygreen1 sentence2023The Illinois Supreme Court has noted that “the terms forfeiture and waiver have, at times, been used interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases.” People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 . “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” whereas “[f]orfeiture is defined as the failure to make the timely assertion of the right.” People v. Lesley, 2018 IL 122100, ¶¶ 36, 37 ; see also Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co., 227 Ill. 2d 302 , 320 n.2 (2008) (noting that forfeiture is the failure to timely comply with procedural requirements | 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. Hughes
green
2 sentences2024People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 37 ; People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005). 2020People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 37 ; People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005). | 2 | 2020–2024 |