Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 Ill. 2d 159 - People v. Sandoval

135 Ill. 2d 159 - People v. Sandoval’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
5
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 127 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 147 Ill. 2d 326 - People v. Frieberg (1992), 194 Ill. 2d 502 - People v. Kirchner (2000)

4 federal appellate · 127 state decisions

9101990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Weeks v. United States

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

  1. ““a. In prosecutions for aggravated criminal sexual assault, *** the prior sexual activity or the reputation of the alleged victim is inadmissible except as evidence concerning the past sexual conduct of the alleged victim with the accused.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 115-7(a).”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “prevent the defendant from harassing and humiliating the complaining witness with evidence of either her reputation for chastity or specific acts of sexual conduct with persons other than defendant, since such evidence has no bearing on whether she consented to sexual relations with the defendant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The language of the statute *** is concise and precise. *** The rape shield statute is neither vague nor ambiguous. We note that the statute does not limit its proscription to a defendant’s attempts to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual encounters; the statute says quite simply that ‘the prior sexual activity *** is inadmissible.’ (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 115 — 7(a).) *** [T]he exception addresses only the ‘past sexual conduct of the alleged victim with the accused.’ Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 115-7(a). * * * *** The language of the statute *** leaves no room for introduction of reputation or specific-act evidence from any party in the action.” (Emphasis in original.)”
    2 later decisions 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.