157 Ill. 2d 401 - People v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
297 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 307 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 209 Ill. 2d 194 - People v. Evans (2004), 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001)
297 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Lockett v. Ohio · Hernandez v. New York · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 307 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to determine the prejudicial effect of any remarks, the scope of closing argument is within the trial court's discretion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Green · People v. Anaya“" '[I]n many instances there will be no single criterion that serves as the basis for the decision whether to excuse a particular venireman. A characteristic deemed to be unfavorable in one prospective juror, and hence grounds for a peremptory challenge, may, in a second prospective juror, be outweighed by other, favorable characteristics.’ (People v. Mack (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 231, 239 .) Consequently, a peremptory challenge may be based on a combination of traits. A particular trait that justifies exclusion of a venireperson can be acceptable in a juror who has a different combination of traits which distinguish that juror from those peremptorily challenged.” Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 431 , 626 N.E.2d at 173 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Defendant contends that the State’s rationale for desiring more men to balance out the jury was pretextual since the next two venirepersons accepted by the State were women, namely Diane Nummy and Maria Mentanis. We note, however, that although Nummy, Mentanis and Praser shared a trait which the State regarded as undesirable, only Nummy and Mentanis possessed another trait which the State believed made them desirable as jurors. [Citation.] Unlike Praser, Nummy and Mentanis were employed. Consequently, the fact that Nummy and Mentanis were female was outweighed by their employment, which made them desirable to the State as jurors and distinguished them from Praser.” People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 433-34 .”
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.