118 Ill. 2d 501 - People v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 225 Ill. 2d 246 - People v. Stechly (2007)
3 federal appellate · 40 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 Barber v. Page · 103 Ill. 2d 472 - People v. Zehr · 146 Ill. App. 3d 640 - People v. Johnson
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While we do not necessarily adopt Rule 804 as an exhaustive definition of ‘unavailable’ under Illinois law, we do embrace the general principles reflected therein. The general thrust of the rule makes clear that ‘unavailability’ is a narrow concept, subject to a rigorous standard.” Johnson, 118 Ill. 2d at 509 , 517 N.E.2d at 1074 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e feel compelled to acknowledge the special difficulties presented by cases such as these, where the witness in question is a young child whose fear and reticence is probably nonvolitional and hence understandable. However, it is our view that any attempts to resolve these difficulties must be initiated by the legislature.” (Johnson, 118 Ill. 2d at 510 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) If it appears to the court in which a criminal charge is pending that the deposition of any person other than the defendant is necessary for the preservation of relevant testimony because of the substantial possibility it would be unavailable at the time of hearing or trial, the court may, upon motion and notice to both parties and their counsel, order the taking of such person’s deposition under oral examination or written questions for use as evidence at a hearing or trial.” 134 Ill. 2d R. 414(a).”
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.