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 1995–2020 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. Pecorarogreen1 sentence2020See Pecoraro, 175 Ill. 2d at 326 . ¶ 64 Trial counsel’s decisions in cross-examining Patterson and Griffin were not objectively unreasonable, and therefore do not satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vaughngreen1 sentence2000In People v. Vaughn, 116 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Olivo
green
2 sentences2001How defendant's attempted murder conviction should be classified for purposes of the extended-term sentencing rules is not affected by this court's recent decision in People v. Olivo, 183 Ill.2d 339 , 233 Ill.Dec. 661 , 701 N.E.2d 511 (1998). 2001How defendant’s attempted murder conviction should be classified for purposes of the extended-term sentencing rules is not affected by this court’s recent decision in People v. Olivo, 183 Ill. 2d 339 (1998). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences1995In choosing to continue the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over 13- and 14-year-old juveniles suspected of murder *** while providing for waiver of jurisdiction and transfer for trial under the Criminal Code, the legislature was reaffirming its preference that the juvenile judge strike the necessary balance as required by section 2 — 7(3) and the facts of each case.” (Clark, 119 Ill. 2d at 13 , 518 N.E.2d at 143 .) How defendant translates this into a conclusion that there is a preference for the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over 14-year-olds charged with murder is unclear. 1995In choosing to continue the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over 13- and 14-year-old juveniles suspected of murder *** while providing for waiver of jurisdiction and transfer for trial under the Criminal Code, the legislature was reaffirming its preference that the juvenile judge strike the necessary balance as required by section 2 — 7(3) and the facts of each case.” (Clark, 119 Ill. 2d at 13 , 518 N.E.2d at 143 .) How defendant translates this into a conclusion that there is a preference for the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over 14-year-olds charged with murder is unclear. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.