5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Egbert v. Curtisgreen2 sentences2014Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). 2014Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goodman v. Ward
green
2 sentences2017Goodman, 241 Ill. 2d at 406 . ¶ 38 Defendants argue that there are numerous facts in dispute, as well as issues about whether the facts satisfy the controlling legal rules, so we should apply the “clearly erroneous” standard. 2017Goodman, 241 Ill. 2d at 406 . ¶ 38 Defendants argue that there are numerous facts in dispute as well as issues about whether the facts satisfy the controlling legal rules, so we should apply the “clearly erroneous” standard. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2020Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d at 280 . ¶ 35 Defendant asks that we apply a nondeferential standard when we consider the audio recordings of the transactions with Johnson. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Radojcic
green
1 sentence2020Our supreme court’s decision in People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197 , provides some support for that suggestion. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.