149 Ill. 2d 247 - In Re a Minor’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 179 Ill. 2d 367 - Best v. Taylor MacHine Works (1997), 267 Ill. App. 3d 145 - In Re JS (1994)
3 district · 30 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 Sheppard v. Maxwell · Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad · Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart · American Communications Ass'n v. Douds · Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State has an interest in the nondisclosure of the minor victims' identities in its role as parens patriae. It was in its role as parens patriae that the State initiated these juvenile proceedings to provide shelter and care for these abused children. The minor victims reside and will continue to reside in a small community. Public identity could cause continuing emotional trauma to these unfortunate children and impede the lengthy and difficult healing process which they must endure. We find that the danger of public disclosure and the probability of irreparable adverse effects which such disclosure would entail to be a compelling State interest at stake in this case. Coupled with the State's interest in nondisclosure, we find that the minor victims themselves have a compelling interest at stake in this case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The minor victims in this case have done nothing to limit or diminish their constitutional right to be free from governmental and nongovernmental invasions of their privacy. They are not juvenile delinquents. They are not participating in the juvenile proceedings begun on their behalf through their own free will. They were victims of abuse by a parent. They were thrust into the juvenile system by actions of third parties, not by their own actions. Under these facts, we find that the minor victims have a compelling interest in their right to be free from invasions of their privacy. Public disclosure of their identities would surely invade their right to privacy in a most egregious manner." (Emphasis in original.) Minor, 149 Ill.2d at 256-57 , 172 Ill.Dec. 382 , 595 N.E.2d 1052 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`the need for free and unfettered expression.'”
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.