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 1 courts 2015–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Roberto Maciasgreen1 sentence2015Id.; see also United States v. Macias, 786 F.3d 1060, 1063 (7th Cir. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Commitment of Gavin
green
2 sentences2025In re Commitment of Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 78 . 2025In re Commitment of Gavin, 2014 IL App (1st) 122918, ¶ 78 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Westefer
green
1 sentence2026In Westefer, 169 Ill. App. 3d at 61-62 , for example, we relied on common-law precedents to find that a knife with a one-inch blade qualified was a dangerous weapon under the residual clause because it was “an inherently dangerous weapon” or “deadly per se.” The confusing analysis in Westefer, though it reached a sound result, strayed far from the terms of the residual clause and the findings it requires. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Powell
green
2 sentences2023On appeal, the State argues, based largely on People v. Powell, 159 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1013 , (1987), that there was no error in the trial court’s refusal. ¶ 70 In Powell, the supreme court stated: “In order to convict a defendant of attempted murder, the jury must be instructed that the defendant had a specific intent to kill.” Powell, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 1013 . 2023On appeal, the State argues, based largely on People v. Powell, 159 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1013 , (1987), that there was no error in the trial court’s refusal. ¶ 70 In Powell, the supreme court stated: “In order to convict a defendant of attempted murder, the jury must be instructed that the defendant had a specific intent to kill.” Powell, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 1013 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Olano
red
1 sentence2017In Olano, the Supreme Court held that “[t]here may be cases where an intrusion should be presumed prejudicial.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 739 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.