166 Ill. 2d 35 - People v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 223 Ill. 2d 187 - People v. Sutherland (2006)
12 federal appellate · 48 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Barber v. Page · 111 Ill. 2d 58 - People v. Bowel · 162 Ill. 2d 314 - People v. Cruz · 141 Ill. 2d 323 - People v. House
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"For an opportunity to cross-examine to be considered meaningful, and therefore adequate and effective, the motive and focus of the cross-examination at the time of the initial proceeding must be the same or similar to that which guides the cross-examination during the subsequent proceeding." Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d at 273 , 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 (quoting Rice, 166 Ill.2d at 41 , 209 Ill.Dec. 635 , 651 N.E.2d 1083 ).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the declarant must be unavailable, (2) the declarant's statement must have been against his or her penal interest, and (3) corroborating circumstances must support the trustworthiness of the statement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Wright · People v. Wright“[T]estimony of a witness at a prior hearing is admissible in evidence at trial where the witness is unavailable and when ample opportunity to cross-examine existed at the prior hearing.”
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.