117 Ill. App. 2d 34 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. ““There was no objection to this testimony at the trial, so any error which may have occurred in its admission is deemed to have been waived. People v. Dial, 95 Ill.App.2d 345 , 238 N.E.2d 122 ; People v. Hester, 49 Ill.App.2d 308 , 200 N.E.2d 3 . Even if hearsay testimony had been improperly admitted reversal is not warranted where the same matter has been proved by independent and properly admitted evidence. People v. Frenchwood, 28 Ill.2d 139 , 190 N.E.2d 767 . The identification testimony of the robbery victims in this case was sufficient to render the officer’s testimony mere surplusage, and we find that no prejudice resulted therefrom.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Ill. App. 3d 650 - People v. Ross

2. ““« # » When a witness is asked to view a lineup, there is, necessarily, an implied suggestion that the police investigation has led them to believe that one of the persons exhibited in the lineup may have committed the crime. e 6”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 Ill. App. 3d 1098 - People v. Carlton