7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2025 2 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. Martinezgreen2 sentences2006Although the trial court stated it was conducting the third-step analysis, it is clear that the court did not in fact conduct the third step.” (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Martinez, 317 Ill. 2006Although the trial court stated it was conducting the third-step analysis, it is clear that the court did not in fact conduct the third step." (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Martinez, 317 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Frederick Harris v. Glenn Haeberlingreen1 sentence2021For example, some jurisdictions (see, e.g., Harris v. Haeberlin, 752 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (6th Cir. 2014)) have taken the position that a Batson hearing always requires a three-step process, even when the prosecution cannot remember why it exercised a peremptory strike, and that during the third step all of the evidence produced during the prior steps is considered together. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thomasgreen1 sentence1989Thus, each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not, and the Blockburger test is satisfied.” (Thomas, 757 F.2d at 1371.) The third step of the test was to examine the legislative history in order to determine if there was any indication that Congress did not intend to impose multiple punishments for the two separate offenses. | 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. Davis
green
1 sentence2025Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363 . ¶ 87 Finally, at the third step of analysis, “the trial court then weighs the evidence in light of the prima facie case, the [striking attorney’s] reasons for challenging the venireperson, and any rebuttal by *** counsel” for the party opposing the peremptory strike. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2021We note as well that such an approach makes sense, because inherent in the third step is the requirement that the State has, during the second step, provided a clear and precise reason for exercising its strike, because it defies logic to contend that one can conduct a third-step evaluation of “whether the demeanor of the potential juror can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the potential juror by the State” (see Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶ 20 ), if the State has failed to tell the court what that basis was, or if the State has offered speculation | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Kizer
green
1 sentence2009Kizer, 318 Ill. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences1987(McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 36 L. 1987(McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 36 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.