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 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schultz v. NORTHEAST ILL. REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP.green2 sentences2025Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 274 (2002)). ¶ 151 We first note, at the portion of the jury instruction conference in the record, when the trial court denied the instruction, it stated, “That’s going to be denied. 2017Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 274 , 775 N.E.2d 964, 973 (2002). ¶ 36 We now turn to the merits of defendant’s argument. ¶ 37 C. | 3 | 3 |
Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc.green1 sentence2025“Even if the trial court errs by giving an improper instruction, a reviewing court will ordinarily not reverse the trial court unless the instruction ‘clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.’ ” Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc., 2016 IL App (4th) 150991, ¶ 35 (quoting Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2012People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 428 (2005). ¶ 141 Even if admission of the autopsy report was error, defendant did not properly preserve this issue and he has not argued that admission of the autopsy report was plain error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Studt v. Sherman Health Systems
green
2 sentences2017Where a nonpattern instruction is given, that instruction should be “simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.” Id. ¶ 35 Even if the trial court errs by giving an improper instruction, a reviewing court will ordinarily not reverse the trial court unless the instruction “clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.” Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. 2016Where a nonpattern instruction is given, that instruction should be “simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.” Id. -9- ¶ 35 Even if the trial court errs by giving an improper instruction, a reviewing court will ordinarily not reverse the trial court unless the instruction “clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.” Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Caron v. United States
green
2 sentences2021Thus, the question was “whether the handgun restriction activates the unless clause, making the convictions count under federal law.” Caron, 524 U.S. at 313 . ¶ 32 The defendant argued that “the unless clause allows an offender to possess what state law permits him to possess, and nothing more.” Caron, 524 U.S. at 314 . 2021Thus, the question was “whether the handgun restriction activates the unless clause, making the convictions count under federal law.” Caron, 524 U.S. at 313 . ¶ 32 The defendant argued that “the unless clause allows an offender to possess what state law permits him to possess, and nothing more.” Caron, 524 U.S. at 314 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Ellis
green
1 sentence1989App. 3d 603 , 437 N.E.2d 409 .) Moreover, even where a reviewing court finds that an improper instruction was given, it will not reverse the trial court unless the instruction affected the outcome of the verdict. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Rufus
green
1 sentence1989People v. Rufus (1982), 104 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.