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 2 courts 1982–2023 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. Murphygreen1 sentence2023See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -5- ¶ 19 We note that, citing People v. Murphy, 72 Ill. 2d 421 (1978), the trial court’s order dismissed defendant’s petition under a long-repudiated framework, using a much higher standard for gauging trial counsel’s effectiveness, because defendant retained private counsel for trial. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2023See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -5- ¶ 19 We note that, citing People v. Murphy, 72 Ill. 2d 421 (1978), the trial court’s order dismissed defendant’s petition under a long-repudiated framework, using a much higher standard for gauging trial counsel’s effectiveness, because defendant retained private counsel for trial. | 1 | 1 |
Schlup v. Delored1 sentence2017“Stated differently, leave of court should be granted when the petitioner’s supporting documentation raises the probability that ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of [this] new evidence’ (Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995) (characterizing the threshold standard as one of probability)).” Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 24 . “[M]ore likely than not” means a probability of only “more than 50%.” Perkey v. Portes-Jarol, 2013 IL App (2d) 120470, ¶ 65 . ¶ 139 With all due respect, I believe that the majority is applying a much higher standard. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Gustafsongreen1 sentence1990Peterson, 112 Ill. 2d at 52 , 491 N.E.2d at 1152 ; In re Marriage of Gustafson (1989), 181 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Citizens Utility Board v. Illinois Commerce Commission
neutral
2 sentences2015CUB filed a timely notice of appeal. ¶ 41 ANALYSIS - 14 - 2015 IL App (2d) 130817 ¶ 42 CUB’s first contention on appeal is that the Commission applied a much higher standard of proof than required under the Act, which rendered the Commission’s decision arbitrary and unlawful. 2015CUB filed a timely notice of appeal. ¶ 41 ANALYSIS - 14 - 2015 IL App (2d) 130817 ¶ 42 CUB’s first contention on appeal is that the Commission applied a much higher standard of proof than required under the Act, which rendered the Commission’s decision arbitrary and unlawful. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Royse
green
1 sentence2023As defendant’s reply brief notes, our supreme court abrogated this approach in People v. Royse, 99 Ill. 2d 163 (1983). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2017“Stated differently, leave of court should be granted when the petitioner’s supporting documentation raises the probability that ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of [this] new evidence’ (Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995) (characterizing the threshold standard as one of probability)).” Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 24 . “[M]ore likely than not” means a probability of only “more than 50%.” Perkey v. Portes-Jarol, 2013 IL App (2d) 120470, ¶ 65 . ¶ 139 With all due respect, I believe that the majority is applying a much higher standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Perkey v. Portes-Jorol
green
1 sentence2017“Stated differently, leave of court should be granted when the petitioner’s supporting documentation raises the probability that ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of [this] new evidence’ (Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995) (characterizing the threshold standard as one of probability)).” Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 24 . “[M]ore likely than not” means a probability of only “more than 50%.” Perkey v. Portes-Jarol, 2013 IL App (2d) 120470, ¶ 65 . ¶ 139 With all due respect, I believe that the majority is applying a much higher standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Custody of Peterson
green
2 sentences1990Peterson, 112 Ill. 2d at 52 , 491 N.E.2d at 1152 ; In re Marriage of Gustafson (1989), 181 Ill. 1990Peterson, 112 Ill. 2d at 52 , 491 N.E.2d at 1152 ; In re Marriage of Gustafson (1989), 181 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Elmore v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1982It is a time-honored principle that all transactions occurring between attorney and client, while the relationship continues, must be subject to the closest scrutiny. ( Elmore v. Johnson (1892), 143 Ill. 513, 525 .) The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in all his dealings with his client is a much higher standard than is required when the parties deal with each other at arm's length. 1982(Elmore v. Johnson (1892), 143 Ill. 513, 525 .) The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in all his dealings with his client is a much higher standard than is required when the parties deal with each other at arm’s length. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In Re Melnick
green
2 sentences1982Gaffney v. Harmon (1950), 405 Ill. 273, 277 ; In re Melnick (1943), 383 Ill. 200, 205 ; see also 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law sec. 121 (1980). 1982Gaffney v. Harmon (1950), 405 Ill. 273, 277 ; In re Melnick (1943), 383 Ill. 200, 205 ; see also 7 Am. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gaffney v. Harmon
green
2 sentences1982Gaffney v. Harmon (1950), 405 Ill. 273, 277 ; In re Melnick (1943), 383 Ill. 200, 205 ; see also 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law sec. 121 (1980). 1982Gaffney v. Harmon (1950), 405 Ill. 273, 277 ; In re Melnick (1943), 383 Ill. 200, 205 ; see also 7 Am. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.