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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Kantowski.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Kantowski Anchor | green | “certificate of intent to appeal” | 3 |
| 2 | People v. Kantowski | green | “the record clearly showed the state was impaired by the trial judge's granting of the motion to quash and suppress.” | 3 |
| 3 | Niewold v. Fry | green | “shall be supported by page references to the record on appeal.” | 3 |
| 4 | Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc. v. City of Waukegan | green | “unreasonable invasion of privacy,” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Buchanan | green | “unreasonable invasion of privacy,” | 3 |
| 6 | The People v. Williams | green | “the 'lockstep doctrine,' as it has come to be known, thus, has deep roots in illinois and was firmly in place before the adoption of the 1970 constitution.” | 3 |
| 7 | Robles v. Chicago Transit Authority | green | “material omissions or inaccuracies or improper authentication may be corrected by stipulation of the parties or by the trial court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the reviewing court, or by the reviewing court or a judge thereof” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.