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 1963–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pryorgreen2 sentences2023See Baker, 2022 IL App (4th) 210713, ¶ 63 (holding that a defendant could not argue plain error in connection with a response to a jury question where defense counsel and the prosecutor proposed giving similar responses and the parties then agreed that the court’s proposed response, which was in line with the parties’ suggestions, was acceptable); People v. Pryor, 372 Ill. 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun | 3 | 3 |
People v. Averettgreen2 sentences2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun | 2 | 2 |
People v. Halerewiczgreen2 sentences2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bakergreen1 sentence2023See Baker, 2022 IL App (4th) 210713, ¶ 63 (holding that a defendant could not argue plain error in connection with a response to a jury question where defense counsel and the prosecutor proposed giving similar responses and the parties then agreed that the court’s proposed response, which was in line with the parties’ suggestions, was acceptable); People v. Pryor, 372 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Crane Carrier Co.green1 sentence1979See also Clark v. Crane Carrier Co. (1979), 69 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kahn v. James Burton Co.
green
2 sentences1963I do agree with the majority, however, that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question under the rule of Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill2d 614, 126 NE2d 836 . 1963I do agree with the majority, however, that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question under the rule of Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614 , 126 NE2d 836 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.