114 Ill. App. 3d 813 - People v. Talach’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 128 Ill. 2d 253 - People v. Johnson (1989), 189 Ill. 2d 228 - People v. Segoviano (2000)
50 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5005
Relies on Chambers v. Maroney · 82 Ill. 2d 268 - People v. Cox · Texas v. White · 88 Ill. 2d 482 - People v. La Pointe · Colorado v. Bannister
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(e) At the conclusion of the period of supervision, if the court determines that the defendant has successfully complied with all of the conditions of supervision, the court shall discharge the defendant and enter a judgment dismissing the charges. (f) Discharge and dismissal upon a successful conclusion of a disposition of supervision shall be deemed without adjudication of guilt and shall not be termed a conviction for purposes of disqualification or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime. Two years after the discharge and dismissal under this Section, unless such conviction was for violation of Section 11-501 of The Illinois Vehicle Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance in which case it shall be 5 years after discharge and dismissal, a person may have his record of arrest expunged as may be provided by law. However, any defendant placed on supervision before January 1, 1980, may move for expungement of his arrest record, as provided by law, at any time after discharge and dismissal under this Section."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall not be termed a conviction for purposes of disqualification or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Sections 116 — 1 and 116 — 2 provide for a fair and orderly procedure by which post[ ]trial motions in criminal cases must be filed in the trial court within 30 days following the entry of a finding or the return of a verdict. [Citation.] Although it has been held that the limitation as to time is mandatory [citations], and that such motions not timely filed are properly denied [citations], the time limitation applies to the defendant. The trial court still retains jurisdiction after 30 days from the entry of the verdict because the final judgment in a criminal case is the pronouncement of sentence. [Citation.] Thus, there is no jurisdictional bar to a trial court entertaining a post[ ]trial motion not timely filed within 30 days as prescribed in sections 116 — 1 and 116 — 2, but prior to imposition of sentence.” Talach, 114 Ill. App. 3d at 818 , 448 N.E.2d at 642 .”
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.