187 Ill. 2d 91 - People v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
217 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 193 Ill. 2d 306 - People v. Williams (2000), 196 Ill. 2d 236 - People v. Ortiz (2001)
217 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 Strickland v. Washington · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California · 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch · 106 Ill. 2d 237 - People v. Collins
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clear and convincing evidence that the witness is identifying the defendant based on his or her independent recollection of the incident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]n these cases, the courts relied on trial testimony to affirm the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Defendant is asking us to overturn the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress based on evidence that came out at trial. The analysis is different in this situation. When a reviewing court affirms a trial court’s suppression ruling based on evidence that came out at trial, it is akin to a harmless error analysis. The reviewing court is essentially saying that whether the court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing becomes irrelevant when evidence to support the trial court’s decision is introduced at trial. One reason this is so is that the pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress is not final and may be changed or reversed at any time prior to final judgment. [Citation.] We do not believe that this reasoning applies equally when a defendant is asking us to rely upon trial evidence to reverse a trial court’s decision on a pretrial suppression ruling, particularly when the defendant fails to object when the relevant evidence is introduced. *** By not asking the court to reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress when that evidence was introduced at trial, defendant has waived his right to argue it on appeal.” (Emphasis in original.) Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d at 127-28 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is the trier of fact's responsibility to determine the witnesses' credibility and the weight given to their testimony, to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence; we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on these matters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Biagi
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.