People v. Valle

How courts have described this case

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

• applying bifurcated standard where “live testimony had a role in resolving a disputed issue of fact”
• refusing to apply this standard where “the trial court [ ] heard live testimony relating to a disputed issue of fact”
• rejecting defendant’s argument that appellate court should use video to conduct de novo review of voluntariness of confession because live testimony had role in resolving disputed issue of fact
• noting the role live testimony has in resolving a disputed issue of fact
• noting the role live testimony has in resolving a disputed issue of fact
• noting the role live testimony has in resolving a disputed issue of fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Span
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2011-06-30· cited 26×
• People v. Green
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2014-11-12· cited 19×
• In re M.K. Juvenile
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2015-01-09· cited 19×
• People v. Schulz
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2024-05-01· cited 14×
• People v. Wells
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2024-03-01· cited 13×
• People v. Coleman
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-11-18· cited 6×
• People v. Hughes
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2014-02-18· cited 5×
• People Ex Rel. T-Mobile USA, Inc v. Village of Hawthorn Woods
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-03-08· cited 2×
• The Board of Education of Du Page High School District 88 v. Pollastrini
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2013-10-15· cited 1×
• People ex rel. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Village of Hawthorn Woods
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-03-09