People v. Ingram

How courts have described this case

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

• fingerprint evidence admissible where seized pistol not described in warrant was receptacle for fingerprints specifically listed in warrant
• fingerprint evidence admissible where seized pistol not described in warrant was receptacle for fingerprints specifically listed in warrant
• taking seized pistols to police laboratory for processing served practical purposes of protecting fingerprint evidence and returning home to defendant as quickly as possible
• taking seized pistols to police laboratory for processing served practical purposes of protecting fingerprint evidence and returning home to defendant as quickly as possible
• fingerprint evidence admissible where seized pistol not described in warrant was receptacle for fingerprints specifically listed in warrant
• taking seized pistols to police laboratory for processing served practical purposes of protecting fingerprint evidence and returning home to defendant as quickly as possible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Kruger
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-01-29· cited 15×
• People v. Bolar
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1990-11-30· cited 7×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Perruquet
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1977-10-05· cited 1,410×
• Dr. Jack L. Marvin, Patricia Marvin v. United States
  Eighth Circuit· 1984-04-26· cited 80×
• People v. Conner
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1979-12-20· cited 60×
• United States v. Martha Reed, A/K/A Martha Burns
  Seventh Circuit· 1984-01-26· cited 56×
• The People v. Wright
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1969-05-28· cited 36×
• People v. Fragoso
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-01-18· cited 19×
• People v. Dorris
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1982-11-30· cited 9×
• United States v. Jordan
  S.D. Illinois· 1963-03-29· cited 4×