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 1 courts 1882–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Studt v. Sherman Health Systemsgreen2 sentences2018If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted “if the error resulted in ‘serious prejudice’ to the [appellant].” Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 28 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 543 (2007)). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. 2017If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted "if the error *540 resulted in 'serious prejudice' to the [appellant]." Studt v. Sherman Health Systems , 2011 IL 108182 , ¶ 28, 351 Ill.Dec. 467 , 951 N.E.2d 1131 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts , 226 Ill. 2d 515 , 543, 315 Ill.Dec. 735 , 877 N.E.2d 1064 (2007) ). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. | 1 | 2 |
Heastie v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2018If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted “if the error resulted in ‘serious prejudice’ to the [appellant].” Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 28 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 543 (2007)). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. 2017If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted "if the error *540 resulted in 'serious prejudice' to the [appellant]." Studt v. Sherman Health Systems , 2011 IL 108182 , ¶ 28, 351 Ill.Dec. 467 , 951 N.E.2d 1131 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts , 226 Ill. 2d 515 , 543, 315 Ill.Dec. 735 , 877 N.E.2d 1064 (2007) ). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. | 1 | 2 |
Schultz v. NORTHEAST ILL. REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP.green1 sentence2026“If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted if the error resulted in serious prejudice.” Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 171940 , (finding reversible error where verdict form precluded the jury from assigning fault to a settling defendant); see also Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 273 (“A reviewing court ordinarily will not reverse a trial court for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.”) ¶ 58 Here, the trial court’s decision to omit Wofford from the jury verdict form | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heardgreen2 sentences2021See People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36, 61 , 718 N.E.2d 58, 72 (1999); see also People v. Abernathy, 402 Ill. 2021See People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36, 61 , 718 N.E.2d 58, 72 (1999); see also People v. Abernathy, 402 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Abernathygreen1 sentence2021See People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36, 61 , 718 N.E.2d 58, 72 (1999); see also People v. Abernathy, 402 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026“If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted if the error resulted in serious prejudice.” Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 171940 , (finding reversible error where verdict form precluded the jury from assigning fault to a settling defendant); see also Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 273 (“A reviewing court ordinarily will not reverse a trial court for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant.”) ¶ 58 Here, the trial court’s decision to omit Wofford from the jury verdict form | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Studt v. Sherman Health Systems
green
2 sentences2017If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted "if the error *540 resulted in 'serious prejudice' to the [appellant]." Studt v. Sherman Health Systems , 2011 IL 108182 , ¶ 28, 351 Ill.Dec. 467 , 951 N.E.2d 1131 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts , 226 Ill. 2d 515 , 543, 315 Ill.Dec. 735 , 877 N.E.2d 1064 (2007) ). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. 2017If the court gives an instruction that inaccurately states the law, reversal is warranted "if the error *540 resulted in 'serious prejudice' to the [appellant]." Studt v. Sherman Health Systems , 2011 IL 108182 , ¶ 28, 351 Ill.Dec. 467 , 951 N.E.2d 1131 (quoting Heastie v. Roberts , 226 Ill. 2d 515 , 543, 315 Ill.Dec. 735 , 877 N.E.2d 1064 (2007) ). ¶ 19 We find that Summit was prejudiced by the erroneous verdict form. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Barnet v. National Bank
green
1 sentence1882In the subsequent case of Burnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555 , the court gives this analysis of the statute: “ Two categories are thus defined, and the consequences denounced: 1. | 1 | 1882–1882 |
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.