Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 Ill. 2d 201 - People v. Edgeston

157 Ill. 2d 201 - People v. Edgeston’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
4
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 185 Ill. 2d 81 - People v. Kliner (1998)

1 federal appellate · 80 state decisions

4901993200020102020decided

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 · Ashe v. Swenson · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Washington v. Texas · Woodson v. North Carolina

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

  1. “Sullivan stated that he intended to file a post-conviction petition challenging the validity of the guilty plea upon which the dismissal of charges against him in the Bang case was based. Further, the State represented to the court that if Sullivan's petition for post-conviction relief was heard and granted, his guilty plea would be vacated and "wé could potentially reinstate [the King] charges, we could then use his testimony in prospective prosecution of that charge." Therefore, compelling Sullivan to testify would effectively prevent him from seeking the collateral relief to which he was statutorily entitled. Id. at 339-40 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"dictates when an individual, who has been found guilty of murder under section 9 — 1(a), may be eligible to receive the death penalty as a result of a previous murder conviction. The punishment is for the new crime, not the prior crime, and the penalty is enhanced only because the individual was found guilty of more than one murder.” Franklin, 135 Ill. 2d at 107 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “such a showing is unnecessary where it is implicit in the trial court's determination that there is a 'real danger' of incrimination.”
    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.