trustworthiness requirement (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

trustworthiness requirement in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2013 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Smithgreen
illappct · 2002 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2007–2010
2 sentences

2007The statute requires the statement to have "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." This court has held that this trustworthiness requirement limits the dead man's exception "to exceptional circumstances." People v. Smith, 333 Ill.App.3d 622, 634 , 267 Ill.Dec. 409 , 776 N.E.2d 781 (2002).

2007The statute requires the statement to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” This court has held that this trustworthiness requirement limits the dead-man’s exception “to exceptional circumstances.” People v. Smith, 333 Ill.

44
Opper v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1954 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954).

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Melchor green
illappct · 2007
2 sentences

2010Section 115-10.4 specifically requires the statement to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” “This court has held that this trustworthiness requirement limits the dead- man’s exception ‘to exceptional circumstances.’ ” Melchor, 376 Ill.

2010Section 115 — 10.4 specifically requires the statement to have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” “This court has held that this trustworthiness requirement limits the dead-man’s exception ‘to exceptional circumstances.’ ” Melchor, 376 Ill.

22010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 725 ILCS 5/115-10.4 (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.

Where else courts name it

IN 31 (2007–2020) CA 28 (1976–2026) TX 19 (1986–2018) NJ 18 (1983–2026) FL 11 (2002–2025) MN 10 (1984–2025) NM 10 (1994–2021) MS 10 (2001–2022) UT 9 (1987–2025) MI 9 (1990–2023) NC 7 (1987–2021) OK 6 (1994–2024) CO 5 (2000–2023) IL 5 (2007–2013) NV 5 (1991–2015) HI 5 (1989–2019) SD 4 (2003–2015) GA 4 (1998–2026) NY 4 (1980–1995) WA 4 (1993–2017) KS 4 (2014–2024) CT 3 (2006–2019) PA 3 (1973–2003) ID 3 (2003–2011) WI 3 (2022–2024) TN 3 (2014–2015) IA 2 (2020–2021) ME 2 (2018–2019) VA 2 (2011–2012) MD 2 (1994–2004) VT 2 (2014–2015) OH 2 (1999–2009) AL 2 (2003–2011) AZ 2 (1990–2015) ND 2 (2014–2021)

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