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 1983–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mashal v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2018Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment ¶ 43 Finally, we address Jenkins's challenge to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Pennymac. "[S]ummary judgment is proper only where the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Mashal v. City of Chicago , 2012 IL 112341 , ¶ 49, 367 Ill.Dec. 223 , 981 N.E.2d 951 (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2014) ). 2018Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment ¶ 43 Finally, we address Jenkins's challenge to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Pennymac. "[S]ummary judgment is proper only where the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Mashal v. City of Chicago , 2012 IL 112341 , ¶ 49, 367 Ill.Dec. 223 , 981 N.E.2d 951 (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2014) ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nielsongreen1 sentence2002People v. Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d 271, 286 (1999). | 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. Bryant
green
2 sentences2012Defendant cites People v. Bryant, 391 Ill.App.3d 228 , 330 Ill.Dec. 49 , 907 N.E.2d 862 (2009), and People v. Briones, 352 Ill.App.3d 913 , 287 Ill.Dec. 909 , 816 N.E.2d 1120 (2004). ¶ 89 In Bryant , the Fifth District found that defense counsel was ineffective in the defendants' joint murder case for failing to call any witnesses, who were available to testify at trial, in support of the defense theory proffered in opening statements to the jury that the murder was committed by others. 2012Defendant cites People v. Bryant, 391 Ill.App.3d 228 , 330 Ill.Dec. 49 , 907 N.E.2d 862 (2009), and People v. Briones, 352 Ill.App.3d 913 , 287 Ill.Dec. 909 , 816 N.E.2d 1120 (2004). ¶ 89 In Bryant , the Fifth District found that defense counsel was ineffective in the defendants' joint murder case for failing to call any witnesses, who were available to testify at trial, in support of the defense theory proffered in opening statements to the jury that the murder was committed by others. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
People v. Ashford
green
2 sentences2012Having successfully moved for severed trials on the ground that [his codefendant] had made statements which, if introduced at trial, would be prejudicial to him, we cannot *545 understand how the defendant can now fault counsel for failing to subpoena [his codefendant]." Ashford, 121 Ill.2d at 75 , 117 Ill.Dec. 171 , 520 N.E.2d 332 . ¶ 86 In his motion for severance, defendant alleged that Jenkins "has made written and/or oral statements implicating [him]." He further alleged that he believed that Jenkins's defense "is in conflict and antagonistic toward [him] and he cannot obtain a fair and i 2012Having successfully moved for severed trials on the ground that [his codefendant] had made statements which, if introduced at trial, would be prejudicial to him, we cannot *545 understand how the defendant can now fault counsel for failing to subpoena [his codefendant]." Ashford, 121 Ill.2d at 75 , 117 Ill.Dec. 171 , 520 N.E.2d 332 . ¶ 86 In his motion for severance, defendant alleged that Jenkins "has made written and/or oral statements implicating [him]." He further alleged that he believed that Jenkins's defense "is in conflict and antagonistic toward [him] and he cannot obtain a fair and i | 2 | 2011–2012 |
People v. Briones
green
2 sentences2012Defendant cites People v. Bryant, 391 Ill.App.3d 228 , 330 Ill.Dec. 49 , 907 N.E.2d 862 (2009), and People v. Briones, 352 Ill.App.3d 913 , 287 Ill.Dec. 909 , 816 N.E.2d 1120 (2004). ¶ 89 In Bryant , the Fifth District found that defense counsel was ineffective in the defendants' joint murder case for failing to call any witnesses, who were available to testify at trial, in support of the defense theory proffered in opening statements to the jury that the murder was committed by others. 2012Defendant cites People v. Bryant, 391 Ill.App.3d 228 , 330 Ill.Dec. 49 , 907 N.E.2d 862 (2009), and People v. Briones, 352 Ill.App.3d 913 , 287 Ill.Dec. 909 , 816 N.E.2d 1120 (2004). ¶ 89 In Bryant , the Fifth District found that defense counsel was ineffective in the defendants' joint murder case for failing to call any witnesses, who were available to testify at trial, in support of the defense theory proffered in opening statements to the jury that the murder was committed by others. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence1983App. 3d 392, 393 , 354 N.E.2d 139 .) Defendant here distinguishes Jenkins from the instant case on the ground that in Jenkins defendant was formally indicted on the lesser included offense, whereas here the formal indictment on the lesser offense was nol-prossed by the State. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.