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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2023 1 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2013Instead, “The statutorily required hearing need only (1) provide the defendant with notice that the trial court is considering imposing a payment order, pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Code, and (2) give the defendant an opportunity to present evidence regarding his ability to pay and other relevant circumstances, and otherwise to be heard regarding whether the court should impose such an order.” Id. 2013App. 3d 163, 164-65 , 696 N.E.2d 1269, 1270 (1998), that an adequate Love hearing need not be lengthy or complex. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Love v. State
green
1 sentence2023The court reasoned that the DUI statute violated equal protection - 18 - because (1) the statute was intended to ensure public safety and (2) “the effects of legally-used marijuana are indistinguishable from the effects of illegally-used marijuana.” Love, 517 S.E.2d at 57 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Fitzpatrick
green
2 sentences2012Fitzpatrick, 2011 IL App (2d) 100463, ¶ 13 , 960 N.E.2d at 715 . ¶ 43 While the State asked that the case be remanded for a hearing, the defendant argued no hearing could be ordered because the 90-day period had expired. 2012Fitzpatrick, 2011 IL App (2d) 100463, ¶ 13 , 960 N.E.2d at 715 . ¶ 43 While the State asked that the case be remanded for a hearing, the defendant argued no hearing could be ordered because the 90-day period had expired. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.