general acceptance test in Illinois

48 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 6 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.

Followed or applied (22)

Case	Followed	Cited
Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.green ill · 2002 · cited in 21 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2022 2 sentences 2022Id. ¶ 45 Finally, exclusion of testimony through the general acceptance test must not be used as a substitute for an attorney’s traditional methods of advocacy in exposing shaky but admissible evidence through vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence at trial. 2022Id. ¶ 44 Finally, exclusion of testimony through the general acceptance test must not be used as a substitute for an attorney’s traditional methods of advocacy in exposing shaky but admissible evidence through vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence at trial.	5	21
Frye v. United Statesred cadc · 1923 · cited in 14 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2023 2 sentences 2023Addressing that claim, the appellate court focused on whether bite mark analysis is “scientific evidence” that must satisfy the general acceptance test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 2014Defendant’s motion sought an order barring testimony or other evidence concerning the theory of SBS, shaken impact syndrome (SIS), or abusive head trauma (AHT), on the grounds such evidence fails to pass the general acceptance test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1923). ¶4 Defendant’s motion described SBS, SIS, and AHT as “theories” which postulate that shaking, or shaking coupled with impact, can generate sufficient forces to cause severe brain and eye trauma resulting in possibly fatal injury.	4	14
In Re Commitment of Simonsgreen ill · 2004 · cited in 9 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2005–2021 2 sentences 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authorship 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re 27 Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authors	4	9
People v. McKowngreen ill · 2007 · cited in 11 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2009–2026 2 sentences 2026The defendant claimed that this methodology was “novel” under our supreme court’s decision in McKown, which held that horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety tests were novel because Illinois courts issued “divergent opinions on the topic” such that the general acceptance of the test “remain[ed] unsettled.” Id. ¶ 58 (quoting McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 257 ). 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re 27 Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authors	3	11
In re Detention of Newgreen illappct · 2013 · cited in 7 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2021 2 sentences 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authorship 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re 27 Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authors	2	7
People v. Colemangreen illappct · 2015 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authorship 2021See McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 255 (discussing the split among jurisdictions on the question of whether horizontal gaze nystagmus testing is scientific); In re 27 Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 533-35 (discussing the split among the jurisdictions on whether Frye is applicable to actuarial risk assessments); In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶¶ 47-59 (analyzing whether the diagnosis of a novel mental disorder is subject to the general acceptance test under Frye); Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶¶ 111, 114 (finding testimony from an “expert linguist” on the issue of authors	2	2
Donnellan v. First Student, Inc.green illappct · 2008 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014“Under the general acceptance test of Frye, scientific evidence is admissible if the methodology underlying the opinion is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [Citation.] The focus of this test is on the underlying methodology of the opinion and not the ultimate conclusion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Donnellan v. First Student, Inc., 383 Ill. 2014“Under the general acceptance test of Frye, scientific evidence is admissible if the methodology underlying the opinion is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [Citation.] The focus of this test is on the underlying methodology of the opinion and not the ultimate conclusion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Donnellan v. First Student, Inc., 383 Ill.	2	2
People v. Lunagreen illappct · 2013 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014App. 3d 606, 625 (2009). ¶ 47 This court reviews a claim that the trial court erred in failing to hold a Frye hearing, and that the erroneously admitted evidence would not satisfy the general acceptance test, de novo. - 21 - 1-11-3079 People v. Luna, 2013 IL App (1st) 072253, ¶ 49 (citing In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523, 530-31 (2004)). 2014App. 3d 606, 625 (2009). ¶ 47 This court reviews a claim that the trial court erred in failing to hold a Frye hearing, and that the erroneously admitted evidence would not satisfy the general acceptance test, de novo. - 21 - 1-11-3079 People v. Luna, 2013 IL App (1st) 072253, ¶ 49 (citing In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523, 530-31 (2004)).	2	2
People v. Armstronggreen illappct · 2009 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Defendant claims that given “fierce disagreement” in the medical community as to the legitimacy of the SBS diagnosis, “it is difficult to imagine how the diagnosis can ever be deemed ‘generally accepted’ under Frye.” “The ‘general acceptance’ test set forth in Frye provides that scientific evidence is admissible at trial only if the methodology or scientific principle upon which the opinion is based is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [Citations.] The trial court may determine whether the scientific principle or methodology 2014Defendant claims that given “fierce disagreement” in the medical community as to the legitimacy of the SBS diagnosis, “it is difficult to imagine how the diagnosis can ever be deemed ‘generally accepted’ under Frye.” “The ‘general acceptance’ test set forth in Frye provides that scientific evidence is admissible at trial only if the methodology or scientific principle upon which the opinion is based is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [Citations.] The trial court may determine whether the scientific principle or methodology	2	2
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washingtongreen ala · 2000 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So. 2d 505, 518 (Ala. 2000). 2006Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So. 2d 505, 518 (Ala. 2000).	2	2
Agnew v. Shawgreen illappct · 2005 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Agnew v. Shaw, 355 Ill. 2006Agnew v. Shaw, 355 Ill.	2	2
In Re Detention of Holtzgreen iowactapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So.2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , 144 S.W.3d at 850-51 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 753-56 , 72 P.3d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis.2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley , 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian , 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling , 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz , 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S. , 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell , 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter , 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
People v. Therriangreen calctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
State v. Taintergreen wisctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
In Re the Commitment of R.S.green nj · 2002 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fieldsgreen arizctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
Roeling v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So.2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , 144 S.W.3d at 850-51 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 753-56 , 72 P.3d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis.2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2
In Re Marriage of Batesgreen ill · 2004 · cited in 3 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2005–2008 2 sentences 2005The Frye standard, however, does not demand unanimity, consensus, or even a majority to satisfy the general acceptance test ( Donaldson, 199 Ill.2d at 88 , 262 Ill.Dec. 854 , 767 N.E.2d 314 ), and the trial court will apply the Frye test only if the scientific principle, technique, or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is new or novel ( In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill.2d 489, 519 , 289 Ill.Dec. 218 , 819 N.E.2d 714 (2004)). 2005The Frye standard, however, does not demand unanimity, consensus, or even a majority to satisfy the general acceptance test ( Donaldson, 199 Ill.2d at 88 , 262 Ill.Dec. 854 , 767 N.E.2d 314 ), and the trial court will apply the Frye test only if the scientific principle, technique, or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is new or novel ( In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill.2d 489, 519 , 289 Ill.Dec. 218 , 819 N.E.2d 714 (2004)).	1	3
People v. McKowngreen ill · 2010 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 282-83 (2010). 2012See People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 282-83 (2010).	1	1
Goddard v. Stategreen moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So.2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , 144 S.W.3d at 850-51 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 753-56 , 72 P.3d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis.2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	1	1
In Re Detention of Thorellgreen wash · 2003 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So.2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , 144 S.W.3d at 850-51 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 753-56 , 72 P.3d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis.2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	1	1
People v. Milesgreen illappct · 1991 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See Miles, 217 Ill.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
In re Detention of New green ill · 2014 2 sentences 2015Creating these exceptions opens the justice system to -26- 1-12-1016 abuse." In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶ 57 , aff'd, 2014 IL 116306 . 2015Creating these exceptions opens the justice system to -26- 1-12-1016 abuse." In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, ¶ 57 , aff'd, 2014 IL 116306 .	3	2015–2015
In re the Detention of Thorell green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 ( Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at 419-20 ( Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So.2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W.2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard , 144 S.W.3d at 850-51 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 753-56 , 72 P.3d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis.2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met). 2004See Romley, 201 Ariz. at 328 , 35 P.3d at 89 (Frye not applicable); Therrian, 113 Cal. App. 4th at 614-16 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 419-20 (Frye not applicable); Roeling, 880 So. 2d at 1238-40 (general acceptance standard met); Holtz, 653 N.W2d at 619 (general acceptance test met); Goddard, slip op. at 5 (general acceptance test met); R.S., 173 N.J. at 136-37 , 801 A.2d at 220-21 (general acceptance test met); Thorell, 149 Wash. 2d at 753-56 , 72 P.2d at 724-25 (general acceptance test met); Tainter, 259 Wis. 2d at 399 , 655 N.W.2d at 544 (general acceptance test met).	2	2004–2004
People v. Prante green illappct · 2021 1 sentence 2023Cir. 1923), to be admitted at trial. 2021 IL App (5th) 200074 , ¶¶ 63-87.	1	2023–2023
In Re Detention of Erbe green illappct · 2003 2 sentences 2004The opposite view is represented by In re Detention of Erbe, 344 Ill.App.3d 350 , 279 Ill.Dec. 295 , 800 N.E.2d 137 (2003), in which the Fourth District held that (1) actuarial risk assessment is not a novel scientific method subject to Frye , and (2) even if it is, it meets the general acceptance test. 2004The opposite view is represented by In re Detention of Erbe, 344 Ill.App.3d 350 , 279 Ill.Dec. 295 , 800 N.E.2d 137 (2003), in which the Fourth District held that (1) actuarial risk assessment is not a novel scientific method subject to Frye , and (2) even if it is, it meets the general acceptance test.	1	2004–2004
People v. Watson green illappct · 1994 2 sentences 1994App. 3d 915, 929-30 , 629 N.E.2d 634, 644 .) Furthermore, as Miles recognized, Lipscomb implicitly held that the process of generating probability statistics is an integral part of the DNA identification process, which must meet the general acceptance test under Frye. 1994App.3d 915, 929 , 196 Ill.Dec. 89, 99 , 629 N.E.2d 634, 644 .) Furthermore, as Miles recognized, Lipscomb implicitly held that the process of generating probability statistics is an integral part of the DNA identification process, which must meet the general acceptance test under Frye .	1	1994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 725 ILCS 207/1 (8) IL § 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 (6) IL § 5 ILCS 70/4 (5) IL § 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105 (5) IL § 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-20 (5) IL § 725 ILCS 207/25 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 207/30 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 207/40 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 207/5 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (3) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 48 (1994–2026) NJ 18 (1980–2023) MD 13 (1982–2023) MS 9 (2001–2016) MA 8 (1979–2021) KS 7 (1997–2019) CA 6 (1928–2026) MT 5 (1983–1999) TX 5 (1992–2015) AZ 5 (1982–2014) NY 4 (1986–2005) FL 4 (1985–2005) TN 4 (1999–2015) UT 4 (1980–2002) AK 3 (1999–2019) NV 3 (1922–2010) CO 3 (1991–2005) WY 2 (2025–2025) OK 2 (1957–1995) PA 2 (2002–2013) DC 2 (2003–2018) NC 2 (2004–2015) NE 2 (1996–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check