192 Ill. 2d 548 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 208 Ill. 2d 53 - People v. Johnson (2004)
107 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 · United States v. Cronic · 104 Ill. 2d 504 - People v. Albanese · 189 Ill. 2d 99 - People v. Blue · 185 Ill. 2d 81 - People v. Kliner
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even if prosecutorial comment exceeds the bounds of proper argument, the verdict must not be disturbed unless it can be said that the remark caused substantial prejudice to the defendant [citation], taking into account ‘the content and context of the language, its relationship to the evidence, and its effect on the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial’ (Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d at 152 ). ‘[E]rrors in opening statements or closing argument must result in substantial prejudice such that the result would have been different absent the complained-of remark before reversal is required.’ People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d 483, 507 (1993).” Williams, 192 Ill. 2d at 573 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even if prosecutorial comment exceeds the bounds of proper argument, the verdict must not be disturbed unless it can be said that the remark caused substantial prejudice to the defendant [citation], taking into account ‘the content and context of the language, its relationship to the evidence, and its effect on the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.’ ” People v. Williams, 192 Ill. 2d 548, 573 , 736 N.E.2d 1001, 1015 (2000), quoting People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 152 , 705 N.E.2d 850, 886 (1998).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the prosecutor's comment exceeded the bounds of proper argument, the verdict will not be disturbed unless the remark caused substantial prejudice to the defendant, taking into account the content and context of the comment, its relationship to the evidence, and its effect on the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.”
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.