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 2009–2025 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. Herrongreen2 sentences2025“Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: 17 ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Theis, 2011 IL App (2d) 091080, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. 2011Thus, defendant urges us to review this issue under the plain-error doctrine and argues that defense counsel was ineffective because she failed to preserve the allegedly erroneous admission of the videotape and failed to request a limiting instruction. ¶ 30 Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurre | 3 | 5 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2025“Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: 17 ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Theis, 2011 IL App (2d) 091080, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. 2011Thus, defendant urges us to review this issue under the plain-error doctrine and argues that defense counsel was ineffective because she failed to preserve the allegedly erroneous admission of the videotape and failed to request a limiting instruction. ¶ 30 Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurre | 2 | 3 |
People v. Keenegreen2 sentences2009See Herron, 215 Ill.2d at 184 , 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005), citing People v. Keene, 169 Ill.2d 1, 17 , 214 Ill.Dec. 194 , 660 N.E.2d 901 (1995) ("short of a conclusion that an asserted error is a `plain' one, the so-called plain error doctrine offers no basis to excuse a procedural default"). 2009See Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 184 , citing People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17 (1995) (“short of a conclusion that an asserted error is a ‘plain’ one, the so-called plain error doctrine offers no basis to excuse a procedural default”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Theisgreen2 sentences2025“Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: 17 ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Theis, 2011 IL App (2d) 091080, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. 2022“Under the Illinois plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ [Citation.] However, where no error occurs, there cannot be plain error | 1 | 2 |
| 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.