Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Ill. 2d 60 - People v. Krueger

175 Ill. 2d 60 - People v. Krueger’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

144
cited by 144 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 130 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 144 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably 221 Ill. 2d 282 - People v. Caballes (2006), Heien v. North Carolina (2014)

4 federal appellate · 130 state decisions

5701996200020102020decided

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 United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Weeks v. United States · Ker v. State of California · Elkins 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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"We are not willing to recognize an exception to our state exclusionary rule that will provide a grace period for unconstitutional search and seizure legislation, during which time our citizens' prized constitutional rights can be violated with impunity. We are particularly disturbed by the fact that such a grace period could last for several years and affect large numbers of people. This is simply too high a price for our citizens to pay. We therefore conclude that article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 prohibits the application of Krull 's extended good-faith exception to our state exclusionary rule." Krueger, 175 Ill.2d at 75-76 , 221 Ill.Dec. 409 , 675 N.E.2d 604 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “"The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'a legislature's unreasonable authorization of searches [that] may affect thousands or millions.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.