People v. McCreadie

How courts have described this case

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

• the phrase “ ‘exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty’ ” does not render the natural-life-sentencing provision unconstitutionally vague
• where this court rejected the defendant’s argument that the phrase “exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty” rendered section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (the natural-life sentencing provision
• where this court rejected the defendant’s argument that the phrase “exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty” rendered section 5 — 8—1(a)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (the natural-life sentencing provision) unconstitutionally vague

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Winningham
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2009-06-05· cited 23×
• People v. Hill
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-05-02· cited 4×
• People v. Goodey
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1992-04-15· cited 2×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Grayned v. City of Rockford
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-26· cited 4,166×
• Maynard v. Cartwright
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-06· cited 1,367×
• People v. Odle
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1988-12-21· cited 71×
• People v. Nobles
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1980-04-01· cited 23×