People v. Ernest

How courts have described this case

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

• “Specific intent is not a necessary predicate for criminal contempt.... In terms of common law analysis of mens rea, therefore, a general intent is all that is required. Thus, intent, knowledge, or recklessness will satisfy the mens rea.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Alexy J. Abdo, a/k/a Alexi J. Abdo v. Commonwealth of Virginia
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2015-03-24· cited 91×
• People v. Ernest
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1990-12-20· cited 38×
• Hirschfeld v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1995-09-26· cited 10×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mayberry v. Pennsylvania
  Supreme Court· 1971-01-20· cited 732×
• Taylor v. Hayes
  Supreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 663×
• People Ex Rel. Kunce v. Hogan
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1977-06-01· cited 75×
• In Re Estate of Melody
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1969-05-28· cited 69×
• People v. L.A.S.
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1986-03-19· cited 49×
• The People v. Andalman
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1931-10-23· cited 33×
• People ex rel. Illinois State Dental Society v. Norris
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-12-31· cited 24×
• United Nuclear Corp. v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1982-08-20· cited 21×
• In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Swan
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1981-01-20· cited 19×
• La Vida, Inc. v. Robbins
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1961-12-04· cited 19×
• PEOPLE EX REL. ILL. DENTAL SOC'Y v. Norris
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-12-31· cited 18×