Case law

People v. Albanese

102 Ill. 2d 54 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1984

App. 3d 596, 601 ), the defendant has failed to establish this in the case at bar. … The State has clearly established that Charles Albanese plotted and carried out the murder of his own family members for financial gain.

People v. Thompkins

161 Ill. 2d 148 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 26, 1994

There is, however, nothing in the record that establishes whether or not counsel made a visit to the crime scene. … Clearly, the defendant’s challenge to this remark comes too late. The defendant could have raised the same issue on direct appeal but failed to do so.

People v. Ramsey

192 Ill. 2d 154 · Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

Defendant’s motive in challenging the Act is not difficult to discern — section 15 of Public Act 89 — 404 amended the Illinois insanity provision to make it more difficult for criminal defendants to establish the defense. … This case represents the second case in the past six months in which this court has had an opportunity to speak clearly on the issue of statutory retroactivity.

People v. Shirley

Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1998

Although the appellate panel acknowledged that Rule 604(d) clearly “contemplates that the certificate be filed prior to the hearing on a postplea motion,” the panel nonetheless rejected defendant's argument that the tardy … Consequently, defendant contends, strict compliance with Rule 604(d) has not been established in the record and he must be granted another remand to permit a further opportunity to file for a reduction in sentences.

People v. Quezada

2024 IL 128805 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2024

¶ 30 Detective Amaro testified that he was proficient in understanding the gangs in and around Waukegan and that he had been qualified as an expert witness with regard to gangs a few times. … The appellate court also concluded that counsel “clearly sought to discredit Longmire’s testimony” using the videos. Id.

People v. Redd

135 Ill. 2d 252 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1990

The witness testified at defendant’s trial under a grant of immunity after having made known his intention to exercise his fifth amendment right to remain silent. … His answers established that defendant was gone for a 25- to 30-minute period.

In re Derrico G.

2014 IL 114463 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2014

Clearly, that is not the case. And so I appreciate Ms. Bruzan bringing it to my attention. … A continuance under supervision was clearly not in this respondent’s interest or that of the public.

The Board of Education of Peoria School District No. 150 v. The Peoria Federation of Support Staff

998 N.E.2d 36 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2013

The term “special” refers to “laws which impose a particular burden or confer a special right, privilege or immunity upon a portion of the people of the State.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) … ” qualifying “at a subsequent time.”

Walker v. Chasteen

451 Ill. Dec. 107 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2021

Clearly, when a filing fee is required for filing a mortgage foreclosure, the fee implicates access to the court system, and plaintiffs would have lost reasonable access to the judicial process without payment … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing the statute’s invalidity. Id.

People v. Ramsey

Illinois Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

Because venue was an established element of the offense, this failure necessitated reversal of that conviction. … (West 1992)) so that it would qualify for monies for cleanup. The Act was amended during the appeal.

Van Dyke v. White

2019 IL 121452 · Illinois Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

They also need to very clearly consider the features in the current annuity contract versus the features in the potential replaced contract. … Therefore, an indexed annuity that satisfies the conditions set forth above qualifies for exemption under the federal statute.

In re Haley D.

2011 IL 110886 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2011

Had termination of parental rights been its objective, the State would have been required to say so “clearly and obviously” in its prayer for relief. 705 ILCS 405/2-13(4) (West 2008). … Not only is a mere finding of default not final, it does not even qualify as the type of interlocutory order immediately appealable as of right under Supreme Court Rule 307(a). Burton v.

People v. Barner

2015 IL 116949 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 22, 2015

They concluded that although the analysts’ statements might “qualify as business or official records,” they were prepared specifically for use in a criminal trial and were, therefore, testimony against the defendant … a couch in the third-floor room, consistent with F.M.’s testimony, and stated that F.M. became visibly upset when they entered the space. 4 The State claims that the trial record “clearly

People v. Johnson

2025 IL 130447 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2025

First, the court found the error did not qualify as structural error because the error was subject to harmless error review. Id. at 14. … Defendant maintains the burden of establishing clear or obvious error. People v. Reese, 2017 IL 120011, ¶ 72.

Cunningham v. People

195 Ill. 550 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1902

The witness assented the fact stated by the court was true, but on cross-examination, in effect, qualified his assent to the remark of the court to the extent of saying he could not remember whether the colored woman was … It was addressed to the presumption that the plaintiffs in error were innocent of the offense charged against them, and advised the jury clearly and fully as to the effect to be given a reasonable doubt of guilt.

Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc.

188 Ill. 2d 17 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1999

In order to qualify for benefits, a Share member must select from the network a primary care physician who will provide that member’s overall care and authorize referrals when necessary. … Although all three of these contracts clearly express that the physicians are independent contractors and not agents of Share, we disagree with Share’s contention for the reasons explained below.

People v. Olinger

112 Ill. 2d 324 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1986

Moreover, the extensive publicity clearly included mention of prejudicial evidence which would be inadmissible in the murder trial. … However, we agree with defendant that Adams’ statement that he “figured they let Brutus out” does not qualify for the state-of-mind exception to the rule against hearsay.

Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. The City of Chicago

365 Ill. Dec. 684 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2012

I therefore respectfully dissent. ¶ 42 The legal principles presented by this appeal are well established. … Courts clearly possess subject matter jurisdiction of the type of cases in which the nullity rule has arisen.

Routt v. Barrett

396 Ill. 322 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1947

In applying this, it has been held that the vote of every qualified elector shall be equal in its influence with that of every other one, (People ex rel. Breckon v. … The authority thus given extends to the right to prescribe rules for the nature of the proof to be submitted to establish the fact of residence.

Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.

77 N.E.3d 1 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2016

Such conduct is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a duty under section 414 of the Restatement. … Based on this distinction, plaintiff argues that he qualifies as a “third person” for purposes of section 411. We disagree.