People v. Bell

How courts have described this case

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

• “Depending on the actual content of defendant’s testimony, the State may have needed more evidence to prove the probation violations”
• “Depending on the actual content of defendant’s testimony, the State may have needed more evidence to prove the probation violations”
• “A probationer cannot be held in contempt when the only charging instrument filed is a petition to revoke probation”
• \A probationer cannot be held in contempt when the only charging instrument filed is a petition to revoke probation\
• the trial court did not question the defendant; rather, the State called the defendant as an adverse witness and asked questions concerning his conduct as it was required under the terms of his probation
• “A probation revocation proceeding has not been arbitrarily labeled a noncriminal proceeding. A sentence of probation is a form of agreement between a defendant and the criminal justice system with severe consequences if the agreement is broken”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Lindsey
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2002-05-23· cited 78×
• People v. Hall
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2001-11-21· cited 73×
• Nasrallah v. Davilla
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2001-12-14· cited 24×
• People v. Goleash
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-03-10· cited 19×
• People v. Somers
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-06-13· cited 9×
• People v. Lindsey
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2001-03-20· cited 8×
• People v. McNairy
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1999-12-15· cited 7×
• People v. Renner
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2001-05-18· cited 3×
• People v. Renner Opinion text corrected
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2001-05-18