People v. King

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing defendant’s residential burglary conviction where no evidence placed him inside the victim’s home and there was a “great deal of time,” approximately 13 to 14 hours, in which the residential burglary could have occurred
• reversing defendant’s residential burglary conviction where no evidence placed him inside the victim’s home and there was a “great deal of time,” approximately 13 to 14 hours, in which the residential burglary could have occurred
• tangential argument does not require reversal
• tangential argument does not require reversal
• tangential argument does not require reversal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. White
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1993-02-17· cited 20×
• People v. Stallings
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1991-03-28· cited 13×
• People v. Roberts
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1989-10-12· cited 12×
• People v. Ford
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1992-12-28· cited 7×
• People v. Bishop
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2004-09-17· cited 3×
• People v. Stewart
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2007-11-02· cited 1×
• People v. Madden
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1986-03-17

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• The People v. Nicholls
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1969-03-25· cited 181×
• People of Illinois v. Rhodes
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1981-06-04· cited 91×
• Swift v. Commandant
  Supreme Court· 1970-01-12· cited 89×
• People v. Jackson
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1985-02-07· cited 74×
• People v. Ware
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1980-03-14· cited 23×
• People v. Matthews
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-02-28· cited 23×
• People v. Bentley
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1980-08-29· cited 3×