5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2014 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. Hudsongreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 2 | 4 |
People v. Urdialesgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Jonathan C.B.green2 sentences2011People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008). ¶ 71 Jonathon argues that he was shackled throughout his trial, pointing to the appellate court dissent in this case, where Presiding Justice Appleton stated that, "in the circuit court of Champaign County, defendants wear chains as a seeming matter of course." See 386 Ill.App.3d at 752 , 325 Ill.Dec. 519 , 898 N.E.2d 252 (Appleton, P.J., dissenting). 2011People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008). ¶ 71 Jonathon argues that he was shackled throughout his trial, pointing to the appellate court dissent in this case, where Presiding Justice Appleton stated that, "in the circuit court of Champaign County, defendants wear chains as a seeming matter of course." See 386 Ill.App.3d at 752 , 325 Ill.Dec. 519 , 898 N.E.2d 252 (Appleton, P.J., dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Durrgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sargentgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Jonathon C.B.
green
2 sentences2014The plain-error rule permits appellate review, notwithstanding forfeiture, where “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant; or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred, and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” In re Jonathon C.B., 2011 IL 107750, ¶ 70 . “[I]n addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all. 2014The plain-error rule permits appellate review, notwithstanding forfeiture, where “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant; or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred, and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” In re Jonathon C.B., 2011 IL 107750, ¶ 70 . “[I]n addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re CB
green
1 sentence2011People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008). ¶ 71 Jonathon argues that he was shackled throughout his trial, pointing to the appellate court dissent in this case, where Presiding Justice Appleton stated that, "in the circuit court of Champaign County, defendants wear chains as a seeming matter of course." See 386 Ill.App.3d at 752 , 325 Ill.Dec. 519 , 898 N.E.2d 252 (Appleton, P.J., dissenting). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.