42 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 9 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. Davisgreen2 sentences2020See People v. Davis, 213 Ill. 2d 459, 475 (2004) (reviewing a trial court’s decision declining to give a tendered jury instruction for an abuse of discretion). 2020See People v. Davis, 213 Ill. 2d 459, 475 (2004) (reviewing a trial court’s decision declining to give a tendered jury instruction for an abuse of discretion). | 3 | 3 |
Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2014Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516, 549 (2008). 2014Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516, 549 (2008). | 3 | 3 |
Heastie v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2014Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 543 (2007). ¶ 216 The decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court. 2014Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 543 ; Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 100 . ¶ 23 The decision whether to give or deny a tendered jury instruction is within the discretion of the trial court. | 2 | 6 |
Daly v. Carmeangreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 19, 30-32 , 568 N.E.2d 955, 962-63 (1991) (finding that a tendered jury instruction accurately stated the law which would have explained that a doctor found to be negligent is liable “ ‘for any damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of subsequent health care providers to treat the condition caused by’ ” the defendant’s negligence); see also Simmons v. Lollar, 304 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1962) (applying this basic tort principle where the plaintiff’s decedent died due to complications from a nonnegligent surgery to treat injuries incurred due to the defendant’s neg 2010App. 3d 19, 30-32 , 568 N.E.2d 955, 962-63 (1991) (finding that a tendered jury instruction accurately stated the law which would have explained that a doctor found to be negligent is liable " 'for any damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of subsequent health care providers to treat the condition caused by' " the defendant's negligence); see also Simmons v. Lollar, 304 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1962) (applying this basic tort principle where the plaintiff's decedent died due to complications from a nonnegligent surgery to treat injuries incurred due to the defendant's neg | 2 | 2 |
John W. Simmons v. Davis Lollar, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Altus Lollar, Deceasedgreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 19, 30-32 , 568 N.E.2d 955, 962-63 (1991) (finding that a tendered jury instruction accurately stated the law which would have explained that a doctor found to be negligent is liable “ ‘for any damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of subsequent health care providers to treat the condition caused by’ ” the defendant’s negligence); see also Simmons v. Lollar, 304 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1962) (applying this basic tort principle where the plaintiff’s decedent died due to complications from a nonnegligent surgery to treat injuries incurred due to the defendant’s neg 2010App. 3d 19, 30-32 , 568 N.E.2d 955, 962-63 (1991) (finding that a tendered jury instruction accurately stated the law which would have explained that a doctor found to be negligent is liable " 'for any damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the efforts of subsequent health care providers to treat the condition caused by' " the defendant's negligence); see also Simmons v. Lollar, 304 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1962) (applying this basic tort principle where the plaintiff's decedent died due to complications from a nonnegligent surgery to treat injuries incurred due to the defendant's neg | 2 | 2 |
People v. Castillogreen2 sentences2004People v. Castillo, 188 Ill. 2d 536, 540 , 723 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1999). 2004People v. Castillo, 188 Ill. 2d 536, 540 , 723 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Centergreen2 sentences2026“Ultimately, a reviewing court should grant a new trial only when the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered jury instruction results in serious prejudice to the party’s right to a fair trial.” Id. 2024“Ultimately, a reviewing court should grant a new trial only when the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered jury instruction results in serious prejudice to the party’s right to a fair trial.” Bailey, 2021 IL 126748, ¶ 42 . ¶ 46 We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when instructing the jury. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Majorsgreen2 sentences2003People v. Majors, 308 Ill. 2003People v. Majors, 308 Ill. *441 App.3d 1021, 1034, 242 Ill.Dec. 474 , 721 N.E.2d 753, 763 (1999). | 1 | 2 |
Solich v. PORTES CANCER PREVENTION CENT.green1 sentence2026“When evaluating the propriety of given jury instructions, the reviewing court must view the instructions as a whole.” Solich v. George & Anna Portes Cancer Prevention Center of Chicago, Inc., 273 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Howat v. Donelsongreen1 sentence2025“Ultimately, a reviewing court should grant a new trial only when the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered jury instruction results in serious prejudice to the party’s right to a fair trial.” Id. ¶ 104 “The purpose of the issues instruction is to inform the jury of the plaintiff’s claims - 36 - and the defendant’s responses.” Howat v. Donelson, 305 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Robbins v. Professional Construction Co.green1 sentence2024Robbins v. Professional Construction Co., 72 Ill. 2d 215, 224 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simmsgreen1 sentence2022App. 3d 1027, 1041 (1979)), and we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal (People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 412 (2000)). ¶ 148 III. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen1 sentence2022Accordingly, the trial court’s refusal to give the tendered jury instruction on alibi was not error (People v. Rivera, 72 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coangreen1 sentence2021See Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036, ¶¶ 23-24 (rejecting argument that defendant invited error when he did not object to the State’s tendered jury instruction). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Monroegreen1 sentence2020People v. Monroe, 366 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Serrano v. Rotmangreen1 sentence2011App. 3d 1, 19 (2008) (holding that the circuit court properly rejects a tendered jury instruction where there is no evidence to support it); see also Serrano, 406 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Delgadogreen1 sentence2003See Delgado , 282 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1999People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 , 676 N.E.2d 646, 649 (1997). 1999People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 , 676 N.E.2d 646, 649 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaines v. Townsend
green
2 sentences1997Gaines, 244 Ill. 1997Gaines, 244 Ill. | 4 | 1993–1997 |
Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago
green
2 sentences2014Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 543 ; Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 100 . ¶ 23 The decision whether to give or deny a tendered jury instruction is within the discretion of the trial court. 2014Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 543 ; Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 100 . ¶ 23 The decision whether to give or deny a tendered jury instruction is within the discretion of the trial court. | 3 | 2014–2014 |
The PEOPLE v. Brown
green
2 sentences1996The other side of the coin is that it would be reversible error for the trial court to deny a competent defendant's jury waiver." Brown, 43 Ill.2d at 82 , 250 N.E.2d 647 . 1996The other side of the coin is that it would be reversible error for the trial court to deny a competent defendant’s jury waiver.” Brown, 43 Ill. 2d at 82 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Mescall
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 676-77 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Mohr
green
1 sentence2020A reviewing court is tasked with determining “whether the instructions, considered together, fully and fairly announce the law applicable to the theories of the State and the defense.” Id. ¶ 72 Generally, the circuit court’s refusal to give a tendered jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Crane
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2009A. Standard of Review “Ordinarily, the standard when reviewing the trial court’s decision to issue a tendered jury instruction is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” People v. White, 353 Ill. 2009App. 3d 905, 913 , 819 N.E.2d 1239 (2004). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Kidd
green
1 sentence2002People v. Kidd, 295 Ill. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Malek v. Lederle Laboratories
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d 870, 872 , 466 N.E.2d 1038, 1039 ), and its refusal to give a tendered jury instruction will result in a new trial only where there is serious prejudice to a party’s right to a fair trial. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Jeffers v. Weinger
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d 877, 885 , 477 N.E.2d 1270, 1276 .) A new trial will be granted for the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered jury instruction only where serious prejudice to a party’s right to a fair trial has been shown. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Wille v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1993(Wille, 222 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Moya green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Austin
neutral
1 sentence1990Due to the circuit court’s refusal to allow the defendant’s tendered jury instruction regarding voluntary manslaughter based on serious provocation, the appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial. ( 170 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Jones green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Mitchell neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Board of Library Trustees v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Jones neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| People v. Thompson green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.