People v. Baltimore

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• involving the means by which the State sought to introduce a surveillance video
• “When the State seeks interlocutory appeal of an adverse order, the State must restore the defendant’s freedom unless it can establish compelling reasons to override the rule’s mandate.”
• “When the State seeks interlocutory appeal of an adverse order, the State must restore the defendant’s freedom unless it can establish compelling reasons to override the rule’s mandate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. King - Supplemental filed 1/7/10
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2009-11-09· cited 6×
• People v. Peterson
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2011-07-26· cited 5×
• People v. Hill
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2020-10-19· cited 5×
• People v. King
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2010-01-07· cited 1×
• People v. Phillips
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2011-12-29· cited 1×
• People v. Hill
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2020-07-14· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Drum
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2000-11-22· cited 85×
• People v. Truitt
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1997-01-30· cited 45×
• People v. Kruger
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-01-29· cited 15×
• People v. Wells
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1996-04-12· cited 15×
• People v. Beaty
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2004-07-16· cited 10×
• People v. Albitar
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2007-06-29· cited 7×
• People v. Eblin
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1983-05-17· cited 6×
• People v. Ingram
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-09-13· cited 6×