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 1976–2021 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. Greenwoodgreen1 sentence2011App.3d 898, 901 , 350 N.E.2d 776 (1976) ("In order for the State to establish a violation of [section 31-1(a)], it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the necessary requisite specific intent, in that the defendant acted knowingly."). ¶ 52 For us to resolve whether the State in our case proved that defendant acted with the requisite mental state, we must first examine what the Jones and Greenwood courts meant when they said that obstructing or resisting a peace officer is a specific intent crime. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2021Id. ¶ 45 In support of her claim she made a substantial showing the State “knowingly” used perjured testimony, defendant highlights the following language in Findley’s affidavit: “Tonya Bean stated to me that most of her testimony was information the states attorney [sic] told her to say.” ¶ 46 We find defendant has not made a substantial showing the State knowingly used perjured testimony. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Silagy
green
2 sentences1988(People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 357, 370 , 507 N.E.2d 830 , cert, denied (1987),_U.S___ 98 L. 1988(People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 357, 370 , 507 N.E.2d 830 , cert, denied (1987),_U.S___ 98 L. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Rinaldo
green
1 sentence1984People v. Rinaldo (1980), 80 Ill. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Pickett
green
1 sentence1976(People v. Pickett, 34 Ill. | 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.