Arizona rule in Illinois

6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2018 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Clark v. Arizonagreen scotus · 2006 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018App. 3d 634 , 636, 297 Ill.Dec. 661 , 838 N.E.2d 148 (2005) ; Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735 , 770-79, 126 S.Ct. 2709 , 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006) (holding that Arizona's rule precluding the use of diminished capacity evidence to negate the mens rea element in the absence of an insanity defense did not violate due process). ¶ 64 As we discussed in Hulitt , 361 Ill. 2018App. 3d 634 , 636, 297 Ill.Dec. 661 , 838 N.E.2d 148 (2005) ; Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735 , 770-79, 126 S.Ct. 2709 , 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006) (holding that Arizona's rule precluding the use of diminished capacity evidence to negate the mens rea element in the absence of an insanity defense did not violate due process). ¶ 64 As we discussed in Hulitt , 361 Ill.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Hulitt green illappct · 2005 2 sentences 2018App. 3d 634 , 636, 297 Ill.Dec. 661 , 838 N.E.2d 148 (2005) ; Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735 , 770-79, 126 S.Ct. 2709 , 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006) (holding that Arizona's rule precluding the use of diminished capacity evidence to negate the mens rea element in the absence of an insanity defense did not violate due process). ¶ 64 As we discussed in Hulitt , 361 Ill. 2018App. 3d 634 , 636, 297 Ill.Dec. 661 , 838 N.E.2d 148 (2005) ; Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735 , 770-79, 126 S.Ct. 2709 , 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006) (holding that Arizona's rule precluding the use of diminished capacity evidence to negate the mens rea element in the absence of an insanity defense did not violate due process). ¶ 64 As we discussed in Hulitt , 361 Ill.	2	2018–2018
Martinez v. Ryan green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2014Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 1315 . 2014Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 1315 .	2	2014–2014
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe green arizctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2011Mobilisa, Inc., 170 P.3d at 715-16 . 2011Mobilisa, Inc., 170 P.3d at 715-16 .	2	2011–2011

Where else courts name it

AZ 172 (1946–2026) CA 8 (1946–2014) TX 7 (2005–2012) KS 6 (1970–2018) WA 6 (2001–2010) IL 6 (2011–2018) NV 6 (1950–2017) NM 5 (1973–2017) MI 4 (1942–1988) NY 4 (1983–2012) HI 3 (1981–2004) WY 3 (1991–2015) UT 2 (2004–2006) FL 2 (2014–2016) DE 2 (1994–1995) MA 2 (1987–2006) MT 2 (1978–1980) AK 2 (1992–2023) SD 2 (2012–2016) OR 2 (2001–2026) OK 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check