Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Ill. 2d 83 - People v. Szabo

113 Ill. 2d 83 - People v. Szabo’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch (1988), 215 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Herron (2005)

8 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

47019861990200020102020decided

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 Ohio v. Roberts · Woodson v. North Carolina · Skipper v. South Carolina · Mancusi v. Stubbs · Davis v. Georgia

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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`a narrow and limited exception to the general [rule of procedural default].'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"`Since this is a death penalty case, which under our constitution is automatically reviewed by this court (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 4(b)), we must review the case whether or not a written motion for a new trial has been filed. Otherwise, the constitutional provision for an automatic appeal would be meaningless.'" ( People v. Szabo (1986), 113 Ill.2d 83, 98 , 100 Ill.Dec. 726 , 497 N.E.2d 995 (Clark, C.J., dissenting), quoting People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill.2d 23, 32 , 79 Ill.Dec. 625 , 464 N.E.2d 223 .)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[t]he requirement for a written post-trial motion is statutory, and the statute requires that a written motion for a new trial shall be filed by the defendant and that the motion for a new trial shall specify the grounds therefor. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 116-1.)”
    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.