Skip to main content

People v. Schmalz

Citations

  • 740 N.E.2d 775
  • 194 Ill. 2d 75
  • 251 Ill. Dec. 489
  • 2000 Ill. LEXIS 1706

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that exclusive possession may be joint
  • “The rule that possession must be exclusive does not mean that the possession may not be joint ***.”
  • actual possession exists when a person has “immediate and exclusive dominion or control over” a thing
  • “if two or more persons share immediate and exclusive control or share the intention and power to exercise control, then each has possession”
  • \The rule that possession must be exclusive does not mean that the possession may not be joint ***.\
  • \The rule that possession must be exclusive does not mean that the possession may not be joint ***.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named People v. Schmalz

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.