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 2012–2019 0 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. Harveygreen2 sentences2012People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156, 167-68 , 327 Ill.Dec. 556 , 902 N.E.2d 677, 684 (2009) (quoting People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389 , 286 Ill.Dec. 124 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 194 (2004)). 2012People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156, 167-68 , 327 Ill.Dec. 556 , 902 N.E.2d 677, 684 (2009) (quoting People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389 , 286 Ill.Dec. 124 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 194 (2004)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Artisgreen2 sentences2012People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156, 167-68 , 327 Ill.Dec. 556 , 902 N.E.2d 677, 684 (2009) (quoting People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389 , 286 Ill.Dec. 124 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 194 (2004)). 2012People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156, 167-68 , 327 Ill.Dec. 556 , 902 N.E.2d 677, 684 (2009) (quoting People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389 , 286 Ill.Dec. 124 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 194 (2004)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kaeding
green
2 sentences2014Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d at 241 . ¶ 23 Finally, in Bannister, the State entered into a plea agreement with a separately tried and previously convicted co-defendant, Johnson, to obtain his testimony at defendant’s retrial. 2014Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d at 241 . ¶ 23 Finally, in Bannister, the State entered into a plea agreement with a separately tried and previously convicted co-defendant, Johnson, to obtain his testimony at defendant’s retrial. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ramsey
green
1 sentence2019Jan. 1, 1967) to reduce the defendant’s sentence to the maximum allowable sentence, instead of remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing. ¶ 71 Initially, we note that although the defendant failed to challenge the imposition of the extended-term sentence at the sentencing hearing or in a posttrial motion, “the erroneous imposition of an extended-term sentence is routinely reviewed as second-prong plain error.” People v. Ramsey, 2018 IL App (2d) 151071, ¶ 32 . ¶ 72 In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2019Jan. 1, 1967) to reduce the defendant’s sentence to the maximum allowable sentence, instead of remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing. ¶ 71 Initially, we note that although the defendant failed to challenge the imposition of the extended-term sentence at the sentencing hearing or in a posttrial motion, “the erroneous imposition of an extended-term sentence is routinely reviewed as second-prong plain error.” People v. Ramsey, 2018 IL App (2d) 151071, ¶ 32 . ¶ 72 In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any 2019Jan. 1, 1967) to reduce the defendant’s sentence to the maximum allowable sentence, instead of remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing. ¶ 71 Initially, we note that although the defendant failed to challenge the imposition of the extended-term sentence at the sentencing hearing or in a posttrial motion, “the erroneous imposition of an extended-term sentence is routinely reviewed as second-prong plain error.” People v. Ramsey, 2018 IL App (2d) 151071, ¶ 32 . ¶ 72 In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.