5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Enochgreen1 sentence2026See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (to preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must both make a trial objection and raise the issue in a posttrial motion). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colemangreen1 sentence2023We agree with the State. ¶ 12 Although allegations in a postconviction petition are to be construed liberally (People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 382 (1998)), our supreme court has held that a claim not raised in a postconviction petition may not be asserted for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dickeygreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., People v. Dickey, 2011 IL App (3d) 100397, ¶¶ 24, 27 . ¶ 12 However, in this case the State urges us not to reach the merits of the defendant’s claim, contending that because the defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court, and has not argued for plain-error review before this court, the defendant has forfeited his claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Paschgreen1 sentence2020In support of this proposition, the State points to two cases—People v. Sharp, 2015 IL App (1st) 130438 , ¶ 132, and People v. Pasch, 152 Ill. 2d 133, 216 (1992)—that hold that defects in a sentencing hearing must be included in a motion for a new sentencing hearing to avoid forfeiture. | 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 N.H.
green
1 sentence2023In re N.H., 2016 IL App (1st) 152504, ¶ 74 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Tapia
green
1 sentence2023We agree with the State. ¶ 7 “[I]t is the duty of the parties to bring to the attention of the sentencing authority any alleged deficiency or inaccuracy in the presentence report.” People v. Tapia, 2014 IL App (2d) 111314, ¶ 34 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Sharp
green
1 sentence2020In support of this proposition, the State points to two cases—People v. Sharp, 2015 IL App (1st) 130438 , ¶ 132, and People v. Pasch, 152 Ill. 2d 133, 216 (1992)—that hold that defects in a sentencing hearing must be included in a motion for a new sentencing hearing to avoid forfeiture. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.