People v. Petrus

How courts have described this case

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

• a phone was not considered an eavesdropping device where the receiver was held so that both the officer and the informant could hear what the defendant was saying

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Dugan
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1984-07-19· cited 13×
• People v. Jenkins
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-01-19· cited 11×
• People v. Armbrust
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2011-08-23· cited 7×
• People v. Bennett
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1983-11-17· cited 6×

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Aguilar v. Texas
  Supreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 7,289×
• Spinelli v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1969-01-27· cited 6,223×
• United States v. Ventresca
  Supreme Court· 1965-03-01· cited 4,171×
• The PEOPLE v. Mitchell
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1970-03-24· cited 70×
• People v. Coleman
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1974-01-29· cited 63×
• The People v. Parker
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1969-03-25· cited 35×
• People v. Daliege
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1976-07-23· cited 33×
• People v. Lawrence
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1971-07-08· cited 13×
• People v. Marro
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1972-02-24· cited 12×
• People v. Brown
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1970-11-05· cited 10×
• People v. Finn
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1978-12-29· cited 9×
• People v. Giannopoulos
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1974-06-03· cited 9×
• People v. Search Warrant
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1968-05-21· cited 5×
• People v. Derry
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-06-26· cited 4×
• People v. Smith
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-03-27· cited 4×
• People v. Kopple
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1970-05-27· cited 3×
• People v. Fraser
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1978-06-26· cited 2×