Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 SW3D 481 - Hart v. Commonwealth

Hart v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 215 Ill. App. 3d 413 - People v. Lipscomb · State v. Schwartz · Partin v. Commonwealth · Stringer v. Commonwealth · Baze v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “would require us to assume that there was a substantial possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict if the evidence had not been excluded. We decline to engage in such guesswork without the actual evidence before us. “Without an avowal, or a crystal ball, reviewing courts can never know with any certainty what a given witness’s response to a question would have been if the trial court had allowed them to answer. Appellate courts review records; they do not have crystal balls.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.