113 Ill. 2d 136 - People v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 187 Ill. 2d 91 - People v. Brooks (1999), 163 Ill. 2d 414 - People v. McCauley (1994)
31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification.’ ” People v. Curtis, 113 Ill. 2d at 147 , 497 N.E.2d at 1009 , quoting United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 1165 , 87 S. Ct. 1926, 1940 (1967).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Once it has been determined *** that a lineup violates the sixth amendment right to counsel, any evidence adduced by the prosecution that a witness identified the defendant at the lineup is subject to a per se rale of exclusion. [Citations.] However, an in-court identification may be permitted even when it follows an uncounseled lineup if the State can establish by ‘clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification[ ] [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification.’ (United States v. Wade (1967), 388 U.S. 218, 240 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 1164 , 87 S. Ct. 1926, 1939 ; [citations].) If either a lineup or an in-court identification is improperly admitted, a new trial is required unless the State can prove that the error was harmless. [Citation.]” (Emphasis in original.) Curtis, 113 Ill. 2d at 143-44 , 497 N.E.2d at 1007 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.