Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Ill. 2d 372 - People v. Tenner

175 Ill. 2d 372 - People v. Tenner’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

104 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 183 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Coleman (1998), 194 Ill. 2d 361 - People v. Enis (2000)

104 state decisions

6801997200020102020decided

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 · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Jones v. Barnes · Evitts v. Lucey · Byrne v. United States

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.

  1. “‘There was nothing to suggest a psychiatric exam in this young Defendant’s background. If there had been anything that would have suggested [a] psychiatric exam, I probably would have ordered it sua sponte. I’ve been known to do that to satisfy myself as to the mental competency of a defendant in front of the bench. There’s none of that in this record.’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “substantial deprivation of federal or state constitutional rights.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““This is not a case in which counsel wholly failed to investigate the defendant’s background prior to trial or sentencing. Here, defense counsel retained a mitigation expert, who conducted an investigation into the defendant’s personal history, though counsel later decided not to call that person as a witness either at trial or at sentencing. Nothing in the record at that time, however, suggested that the defendant suffered from any mental impairment, or that there was any need to pursue a separate inquiry into the defendant’s mental condition. *** ***”
    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.