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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2021 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. Thurowgreen2 sentences2003People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352, 363 (2003). 2003People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d at 363 , 272 Ill.Dec. 185 , 786 N.E.2d 1019 (2003). | 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. Jones
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2020Id. ¶ 50 AHC is a Class X felony punishable by 6 to 30 years’ imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(b) (West 2016); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2016). ¶ 51 It is improper double enhancement when either (1) a single factor is used both as an element of an offense and as a basis for imposing a longer sentence than may otherwise have been imposed, or (2) the same factor is used twice to elevate the severity of the offense itself. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Reese
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. ¶ 72 Here, Officer Campbell and Detective Gentile testified strictly to the course of their investigation that led to defendant and codefendant Calvin. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Short
green
1 sentence2020Short, 2020 IL App (1st) 162168, ¶ 79 . ¶ 17 Having determined that defendant forfeited this claim of error, “[w]e may consider a forfeited claim under the plain-error doctrine, under which we consider a clear or obvious error if either (1) the trial evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error was so serious as to deny the defendant a fair trial and challenges the integrity of the judicial process. [Citation.] A defendant claiming plain error has the burden of showing plain error, and the first step in plain-error analysis is determining whether an error occurred at all. [Citation.]” Id. ¶ | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.