statutory grant immunity (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

statutory grant immunity in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1979–1996 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Starksgreen
ill · 1985 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See People v. Starks, 106 Ill. 2d 441, 452 (1985); People v. English, 31 Ill. 2d 301, 308 (1964); People v. Smith, 233 Ill.

11
People v. Smithgreen
illappct · 1992 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See People v. Starks, 106 Ill. 2d 441, 452 (1985); People v. English, 31 Ill. 2d 301, 308 (1964); People v. Smith, 233 Ill.

11
The People v. Englishgreen
ill · 1964 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See People v. Starks, 106 Ill. 2d 441, 452 (1985); People v. English, 31 Ill. 2d 301, 308 (1964); People v. Smith, 233 Ill.

11

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Kastigar v. United States green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1983(See Kastigar v. United States (1972), 406 U.S. 441 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 .) Defendants' position is that the constitutional privilege available to a "person" is not the same as the statutory grant of immunity *643 to a "material witness." The immunity statute, section 106-1, provides: "In any investigation before a Grand Jury, or trial in any court, the court on motion of the State may order that any material witness be released from all liability to be prosecuted or punished on account of any testimony or other evidence he may be required to produce." The effect of this grant of i

1983Ed. 2d 212 , 92 S. Ct. 1653 .) Defendants’ position is that the constitutional privilege available to a “person” is not the same as the statutory grant of immunity to a “material witness.” The immunity statute, section 106 — 1, provides: “In any investigation before a Grand Jury, or trial in any court, the court on motion of the State may order that any material witness be released from all liability to be prosecuted or punished on account of any testimony or other evidence he may be required to produce.” The effect of this grant of immunity is stated in section 106 — 2 (111.

21983–1983
The People v. Finkelstein green
ill · 1939
2 sentences

1991It should be noted that, on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the appellate court decision was reversed on the ground that the trial court lacked authority to grant a motion to quash when a plea in bar was pending. ( 372 Ill. 186 , 23 N.E.2d 34 .) The supreme court did not comment upon the merits of the immunity question.

1991It should be noted that, on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the appellate court decision was reversed on the ground that the trial court lacked authority to grant a motion to quash when a plea in bar was pending. ( 372 Ill. 186 , 23 N.E.2d 34 .) The supreme court did not comment upon the merits of the immunity question.

11991–1991
Gerrity v. Beatty green
ill · 1978
1 sentence

1979It is evident that this relationship would be seriously jeopardized if teachers and school districts were amenable to ordinary negligence actions for accidents occurring in the course of the exercise of such authority." 71 Ill.2d 47, 51 . • 3 The plaintiff argues that the statutory grant of immunity is inapplicable to this suit because the negligent action, the appointment as monitor of the leader of the classmates who threatened the plaintiff, does not involve disciplinary or supervisory activities.

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

WA 11 (1981–2008) MI 11 (1976–2026) NY 7 (1984–2005) CA 6 (1967–2009) OH 5 (1990–2021) IL 5 (1979–1996) FL 4 (1982–2001) CO 4 (2006–2015) AK 2 (1993–1996) CT 2 (1985–2023) VA 2 (1997–1997) MO 2 (2011–2012) LA 2 (1992–2003) NM 2 (1990–2005) TX 2 (2013–2017) WY 2 (1989–2003) OK 2 (1995–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check