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 1975–2023 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. Heralgreen2 sentences1975See People v. Heral, 25 Ill.App.3d 806 , 323 N.E.2d 138 . 1975See People v. Heral, 25 Ill.App.3d 806 , 323 N.E.2d 138 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2019Id. § 6-2(e). ¶ 23 The State filed a motion for a psychological evaluation of defendant in anticipation of a possible insanity defense, pursuant to section 115-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) ( 725 ILCS 5/115-6 (West 2014) ). 2019Id. § 6-2(e). ¶ 23 The State filed a motion for a psychological evaluation of defendant in anticipation of a possible insanity defense, pursuant to section 115-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-6 (West 2014)). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Marcus
neutral
1 sentence2023Grant did not take concurrent notes of his meetings with defendant, and whatever notes he took were general reminders of things he needed to do in - 15 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220096 the future. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Bell
green
1 sentence2021Under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny, when a criminal defendant, subsequent to the defendant’s trial, raises a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “the trial court must conduct an inquiry into the factual basis of the defendant’s claim to determine whether new counsel should be appointed to assist the defendant.” People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Krankel
green
1 sentence2021Under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny, when a criminal defendant, subsequent to the defendant’s trial, raises a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “the trial court must conduct an inquiry into the factual basis of the defendant’s claim to determine whether new counsel should be appointed to assist the defendant.” People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1995Dec. 42 , 529 N.E.2d 1118 .) In People v. Nichols (1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 748 , 27 Ill.Dec. 21 , 388 N.E.2d 984 , the appellate court held that the trial court committed reversible error by denying the defendant's request for funds to retain a psychiatrist for a possible insanity defense; the fact that two doctors had already examined defendant as to his fitness to stand trial was held not to satisfy the need for an examination specifically to explore an insanity defense. 1995Dec. 42 , 529 N.E.2d 1118 .) In People v. Nichols (1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 748 , 27 Ill.Dec. 21 , 388 N.E.2d 984 , the appellate court held that the trial court committed reversible error by denying the defendant's request for funds to retain a psychiatrist for a possible insanity defense; the fact that two doctors had already examined defendant as to his fitness to stand trial was held not to satisfy the need for an examination specifically to explore an insanity defense. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Kegley
green
1 sentence1995Dec. 42 , 529 N.E.2d 1118 .) In People v. Nichols (1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 748 , 27 Ill.Dec. 21 , 388 N.E.2d 984 , the appellate court held that the trial court committed reversible error by denying the defendant's request for funds to retain a psychiatrist for a possible insanity defense; the fact that two doctors had already examined defendant as to his fitness to stand trial was held not to satisfy the need for an examination specifically to explore an insanity defense. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.