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 1976–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bolyard
green
2 sentences1992Defendant cites People v. Bolyard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 583 , 338 N.E.2d 168 , where the appellate court found abuse of discretion because the trial judge had announced at the presentencing hearing that he subscribed to a personal and inflexible policy whereby certain crimes were not probationable. 1992Defendant cites People v. Bolyard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 583 , 338 N.E.2d 168 , where the appellate court found abuse of discretion because the trial judge had announced at the presentencing hearing that he subscribed to a personal and inflexible policy whereby certain crimes were not probationable. | 2 | 1977–1992 |
People v. Eades
green
1 sentence1985(People v. Eades (1984), 123 Ill. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. House
green
1 sentence1984(People v. House (1981), 98 Ill. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Barto
green
2 sentences1976“We add that a defendant by his conduct, in inducing the trial court to impose an agreed sentence, may be estopped from a belated assertion of a statutory right to a sentencing hearing.” (People v. Barto, 63 Ill. 2d 17, 22 , 344 N.E.2d 433 (1976).) Defendant is further estopped from asserting as error the enhanced minimum sentence to which he gave his unqualified concurrence by knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty and accepting the benefits of the bargained for plea agreement. 1976“We add that a defendant by his conduct, in inducing the trial court to impose an agreed sentence, may be estopped from a belated assertion of a statutory right to a sentencing hearing.” (People v. Barto, 63 Ill. 2d 17, 22 , 344 N.E.2d 433 (1976).) Defendant is further estopped from asserting as error the enhanced minimum sentence to which he gave his unqualified concurrence by knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty and accepting the benefits of the bargained for plea agreement. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.