195 Ill. 2d 378 - People v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 229 Ill. 2d 584 - People v. Naylor (2008), 211 Ill. 2d 368 - People v. Harvey (2004)
129 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 Jackson v. Virginia · 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch · 106 Ill. 2d 237 - People v. Collins · 47 Ill. 2d 510 - The People v. Montgomery · 76 Ill. 2d 289 - People v. Taylor
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under this rule, evidence of a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment purposes if (1) the witness’ crime was punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year, or the crime involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment; (2) the witness’ conviction or release from confinement, whichever date is later, occurred less than 10 years from the date of trial; and (3) the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the conviction.” Cox, 195 Ill. 2d at 383 , 748 N.E.2d at 169 , citing Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d at 516 , 268 N.E.2d at 698 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘ “the nature of the prior crimes, *** the length of the criminal record, the age and circumstances of the defendant, and, above all, the extent to which it is more important to the search for truth in a particular case for the jury to hear the defendant’s story than to know of a prior conviction. ***” [Citation.]’ ” Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d at 518 , quoting 51 F.R.D. 393 (see Fed. R. Evid. 609, Advisory Committee’s Note).”
2 later decisions 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.