Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 Ill. 2d 381 - People v. Tenner

206 Ill. 2d 381 - People v. Tenner’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 183 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 215 Ill. 2d 427 - People v. Blair (2005), 235 Ill. 2d 319 - People v. Ortiz (2009)

6 federal appellate · 183 state decisions

760200320102020decided

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 Wainwright v. Sykes · 183 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Coleman · Berkery v. Commissioner · 205 Ill. 2d 444 - People v. Pitsonbarger · Byrne 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The collateral estoppel doctrine has three requirements: (1) the court rendered a final judgment in the prior case; (2) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case; and (3) the issue decided in the prior case is identical with the one presented in the instant case.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “from 'taking two bites out of the same appellate apple.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he doctrine applies when a party * * * participates in two separate and consecutive cases arising on different causes of action and some controlling fact or question material to the determination of both causes has been adjudicated against that party in the former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
    3 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.