People v. Dubanowski

How courts have described this case

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

• Police officers precluded from testifying about a conversation had between defendant and his wife, where wife agreed to wear listening device and conversation took place while the two were legally married.
• “It is obvious that the legislature was merely eliminating archaic language and possible sex discrimination in replacing the term ‘coverture’ with ‘marriage.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Perez
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2009-12-02· cited 306×
• People v. Fisher
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1993-06-30· cited 39×
• People v. Carr-McKnight
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2020-08-13· cited 26×
• United States v. Neal
  D. Colorado· 1982-02-25· cited 20×
• Soedler v. Soedler
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1980-10-07· cited 5×
• People v. Sanders
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1982-12-10· cited 4×
• People v. Carr-McKnight
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-04-16· cited 1×
• Stricklin v. Electoral Board of the Township of Waukegan
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2025-02-18

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Simpson
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1977-10-05· cited 46×
• People v. Palumbo
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1955-02-16· cited 35×
• People v. Simpson
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1976-06-03· cited 23×
• The People v. Kendall
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1934-06-20· cited 17×
• Osborn v. Horine
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1857-12-15· cited 6×