objective or neutral inquiry (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

objective or neutral inquiry in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2018 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Robinson green
illappct · 2015
2 sentences

2018However, we did not find persuasive defendant’s claims (1) that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove residential burglary and aggravated battery or (2) that his sentence for residential burglary was excessive. ¶3 In addition, we remanded for a new Krankel hearing before a different judge, finding that “the State’s participation changed the preliminary Krankel hearing from an objective or neutral inquiry into an adversarial inquiry.” People v. Robinson, 2015 IL App (1st) 130837, ¶ 81 .

2017However, we did not find persuasive defendant's claims (1) that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove residential burglary and aggravated battery or (2) that his sentence for residential burglary was excessive. ¶ 3 In addition, we remanded for a new Krankel hearing before a different judge, finding that "the State's participation changed the preliminary Krankel hearing from an objective or neutral inquiry into an adversarial inquiry." People v. Robinson , 2015 IL App (1st) 130837 , ¶ 81, 394 Ill.Dec. 126 , 35 N.E.3d 1095 .

32017–2018
People v. Jolly green
ill · 2014
2 sentences

2015Moreover, the State argued that defendant’s overall claims “fly in the face of everything that was done at this multi-day trial.” In light of our supreme court’s decision in Jolly and our decision in Flemming, the State’s participation changed the preliminary Krankel hearing from an objective or neutral inquiry into an adversarial inquiry. ¶ 82 Since we have determined that the Krankel inquiry was not properly conducted, there is no need at this time for us to determine the merits of the trial court’s Krankel findings. ¶ 83 Where the State has taken an inappropriate adversarial position during

2015Moreover, the State argued that defendant's overall claims "fly in the face of everything that was done at this multi-day trial." In light of our supreme court's decision in Jolly and our decision in Flemming, the State's participation changed the preliminary Krankel hearing from an objective or neutral inquiry into an adversarial inquiry. ¶ 82 Since we have determined that the Krankel inquiry was not properly conducted, there is no need at this time for us to determine the merits of the trial court's Krankel findings. ¶ 83 Where the State has taken an inappropriate adversarial position during

22015–2015

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 720 ILCS 5/19-3 (5) IL § 705 ILCS 105/27.3e (4) IL § 725 ILCS 240/10 (3) IL § 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check