155 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 232 Ill. 2d 246 - People v. Jackson (2009)
108 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 Strickland v. Washington · Irvin v. Dowd · 106 Ill. 2d 237 - People v. Collins · 84 Ill. 2d 186 - Wilson v. Clark · 76 Ill. 2d 19 - People v. Baptist
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry for the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The reviewing courts apply this standard regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. [Citations.] This standard of review does not allow the appellate court to ‘substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder on questions involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses [citation].’ [Citation.] Therefore, [a reviewing] court will not reverse a criminal conviction unless the evidence is so ‘unreasonable, improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt [citation].’ [Citation.]””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a juror's good faith cannot counter the effect of exposure to prejudicial extrajudicial pretrial information.”
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.