194 Ill. 2d 186 - People v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
199 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 215 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Herron (2005), 207 Ill. 2d 68 - People v. Moore (2003)
199 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 · Gerstein v. Pugh · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Moran v. Burbine · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [a] trial court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As a final matter, we reject defendant’s suggestion that the State did not establish probable cause to arrest him because a police officer testified at the hearing that the police would not have been able to obtain an arrest warrant before going to defendant’s apartment. ‘Probable cause is an objective standard, and an officer’s subjective belief as to the existence of probable cause is not determinative.’ Buss, 187 Ill. 2d at 209[, 718 N.E.2d at 37] (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the determination of probable cause was affected by police officers’ testimony that they did not believe that they had probable cause to arrest the defendant). As we have discussed, the facts demonstrate that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant, and a subjective belief to the contrary does not change that conclusion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Prim instruction informs the jury of the requirement that the verdict be unanimous; that the jury has a duty to deliberate; that jurors must impartially consider the evidence; and that jurors should not hesitate to reexamine their views and change their opinions if they believe them to be erroneous, provided the change is not solely because of the opinion of fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.” Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d at 222 , 743 N.E.2d at 70 .”
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.