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 1972–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kaley v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See 2024 IL App (5th) 220492, ¶ 13 (“The function of a preliminary hearing is ‘to provide an early and independent check on the initial decision of the police or the district attorney to prosecute.’ ” (quoting Delmar Karlen, Anglo-American Criminal Justice 145 (1967))); Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 329 (2014) (noting the “grand jury’s ‘historical role of protecting individuals from unjust persecution’ ” (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 117 n.19 (1975))). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chamblissgreen2 sentences2026The appellate court recognized the error here “deprived the defendant of the basic protections afforded by our constitution and, thus, proceeding forward with the prosecution without providing that protection resulted in an unfair or unreliable process for the determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.” 2024 IL App (5th) 220492, ¶ 25 . ¶ 92 Because of the constitutional significance of the probable cause determination to our system of justice, I believe that the trial court’s failure to make the required finding necessarily implicates the framework of a defendant’s trial and is a str 2026See 2024 IL App (5th) 220492, ¶ 13 (“The function of a preliminary hearing is ‘to provide an early and independent check on the initial decision of the police or the district attorney to prosecute.’ ” (quoting Delmar Karlen, Anglo-American Criminal Justice 145 (1967))); Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 329 (2014) (noting the “grand jury’s ‘historical role of protecting individuals from unjust persecution’ ” (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 117 n.19 (1975))). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gerstein v. Pugh
green
1 sentence2026See 2024 IL App (5th) 220492, ¶ 13 (“The function of a preliminary hearing is ‘to provide an early and independent check on the initial decision of the police or the district attorney to prosecute.’ ” (quoting Delmar Karlen, Anglo-American Criminal Justice 145 (1967))); Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 329 (2014) (noting the “grand jury’s ‘historical role of protecting individuals from unjust persecution’ ” (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 117 n.19 (1975))). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Moore
green
1 sentence1990(Moore, 184 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Puleo
neutral
1 sentence1989(People v. Puleo (1981), 96 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Horton
green
2 sentences1978However, as the court in Horton stated, “[C]learly the preliminary hearing is not intended to be a discovery proceeding.” ( 65 Ill. 2d 413, 417 , 358 N.E.2d 1121, 1124 .) The limitation on cross-examination imposed here was not an abuse of discretion in light of the function of a preliminary hearing. 1978However, as the court in Horton stated, “[C]learly the preliminary hearing is not intended to be a discovery proceeding.” ( 65 Ill. 2d 413, 417 , 358 N.E.2d 1121, 1124 .) The limitation on cross-examination imposed here was not an abuse of discretion in light of the function of a preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Coleman v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1972The Supreme Court in the Adams case, however, specifically determined that Coleman v. Alabama, supra, was not to be retroactively applied in Illinois. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
The PEOPLE v. Adams
green
1 sentence1972In People v. Adams, 46 Ill.2d 200 , the Illinois Supreme Court observed that the function of a preliminary hearing in Illinois is much the same as that in Alabama and thus held that counsel was also required at that stage in our State. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.