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 2010–2022 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. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., People v. Vasquez, 368 Ill. 2010See, e.g., People v. Vasquez, 368 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences2022As such, we find the analysis in Zimmerman does not change our interpretation of section 11-501. ¶ 52 Defendant also contends our interpretation and any authority supporting that interpretation are illogical, given the supreme court’s previous finding in People v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102 , that subsection (d)(1)(F) sets forth an essential element of the offense of aggravated DUI, and its previous pronouncement in Zimmerman, 239 Ill. 2d at 500 , that “it would be illogical for the General Assembly to include a sentence-enhancing factor in a list with eight other factors which constitute an eleme 2014The court further noted, "it would be illogical for the General Assembly to include a sentence- enhancing factor in a list with eight other factors which constitute an element of the offense." Id. | 3 | 2014–2022 |
People v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2014Thus, the Zimmerman court held that the elements of AUUW are contained in subsection (a), while the sentences and sentencing enhancing factors are contained in subsection (d). ¶ 26 In People v. Campbell, 2013 IL App (4th) 120635 , 2 N.E.3d 1249–a decision filed five days after Aguilar was modified, and in which we recognized our supreme court’s decision to limit its holding to the Class 4 form of AUUW–this court reversed the defendant’s Class 2 felony conviction for AUUW. 2014Thus, the Zimmerman court held that the elements of AUUW are contained in subsection (a), while the sentences and sentencing enhancing factors are contained in subsection (d). ¶ 26 In People v. Campbell, 2013 IL App (4th) 120635 , 2 N.E.3d 1249—a decision filed five days after Aguilar was modified, and in which we recognized our supreme court's decision to limit its holding to the Class 4 form of AUUW—this court reversed the defendant's Class 2 felony conviction for AUUW. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Martin
green
1 sentence2022As such, we find the analysis in Zimmerman does not change our interpretation of section 11-501. ¶ 52 Defendant also contends our interpretation and any authority supporting that interpretation are illogical, given the supreme court’s previous finding in People v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102 , that subsection (d)(1)(F) sets forth an essential element of the offense of aggravated DUI, and its previous pronouncement in Zimmerman, 239 Ill. 2d at 500 , that “it would be illogical for the General Assembly to include a sentence-enhancing factor in a list with eight other factors which constitute an eleme | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.