Illinois Supreme Court· 9/26/1990

People v. Bowman

Citations

561 N.E.2d 633
138 Ill. 2d 131
149 Ill. Dec. 263
1990 Ill. LEXIS 97

How courts have described this case

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

finding that defendant’s acquiescence to a particular attorney’s representation contributed to the delay; thus, delay would be charged to defendant
finding that defendant's acquiescence to a particular attorney's representation contributed to the delay; thus, delay would be charged to defendant
rejecting as mere conjecture defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by attorney’s failure to file written motion to withdraw
rejecting the notion that defendant may be placed in “no-lose” situation where he may allege viable error no matter how trial court exercises its discretion
rejecting as mere conjecture defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by attorney’s failure to file written motion to withdraw
rejecting the notion that defendant may be placed in “no-lose” situation where he may allege viable error no matter how trial court exercises its discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stamos

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named People v. Bowman

101 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.