Illinois Supreme Court· 3/21/1996

People v. Daniels

Citations

665 N.E.2d 1221
172 Ill. 2d 154
216 Ill. Dec. 664
1996 Ill. LEXIS 29

How courts have described this case

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

stating that, “[w]hen the language of a statute or a supreme court rule is plain and unambiguous, courts will not read in exceptions, limitations, or other conditions”
stating that, “[w]hen the language of a statute or a supreme court rule is plain and unambiguous, courts will not read in exceptions, limitations, or other conditions”
expressing reluctance to hold that per se reversal of a conviction is required for a violation of right conferred only by supreme court rule
reversing the defendant's conviction in light of a violation of Supreme Court Rule 434(d) (134 Ill.2d R. 434(d)), regarding the number of peremptory challenges permitted in a capital case
reversing the defendant’s conviction in light of a violation of Supreme Court Rule 434(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 434(d)), regarding the number of peremptory challenges permitted in a capital case
supreme court declined to resolve whether Rule 434 preempts section 115-4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McMorrow, Harrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.