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 2 courts 1981–2026 3 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. Colemangreen2 sentences2026Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 97 . ¶ 32 Ultimately, the question before us is not whether we would reach the same conclusion as the trial court. 2020We note that the State’s DNA expert, Kelly Lawrence, testified that one of the reasons defendant’s DNA might not have been found on the two-by-four was that “[t]here could be a lot of DNA already on the two-by-four, therefore, masking or inhibiting DNA from somebody else being seen on the board.” Hence, that the crime scene was “messy” does not necessarily support the inference defendant seeks to base upon it and actually could support a contrary inference. ¶ 20 In sum, we cannot say that the trial court committed manifest error when it determined that the DNA evidence in this case did not mee | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2024Just as the affidavit is conclusive because it identifies someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator, Stanford’s affidavit is likewise material because it is, for that same reason, “relevant and probative of the petitioner's innocence.” Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 96 (citing Smith, 177 Ill. 2d at 82–83). ¶ 21 As for whether the affidavit was noncumulative, the State contends that Stanford’s affidavit merely repeated the defendant’s own testimony that he was not involved in the shooting and Perry’s testimony that she did not see the defendant at Williams’ house. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2022People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123, ¶ 47 . ¶ 45 As our supreme court made clear in Robinson, the conclusiveness requirement means that the court must find that the new evidence, when considered along with the trial evidence, would “probably” lead to the defendant’s acquittal. 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2022People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123, ¶ 47 . ¶ 45 As our supreme court made clear in Robinson, the conclusiveness requirement means that the court must find that the new evidence, when considered along with the trial evidence, would “probably” lead to the defendant’s acquittal. 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. v. City of Akron
green
2 sentences1981Ohio 1979), 479 F. Supp. 1172 ) application of the ordinary severability test produces the same result. 1981Ohio 1979), 479 F. Supp. 1172 ) application of the ordinary severability test produces the same result. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.
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.