206 Ill. 2d 595 - People v. William M.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[O]ur statement that `a juvenile does not have an adequate means for presenting his claims when his attorney fails to file a written motion pursuant to Rule 604(d)' merely acknowledges the absence of any precedential authority supporting the conclusion that juveniles such as the respondent have a viable means of appellate redress. [Citation.] It neither creates an inherent conflict with our prior statements nor necessarily relies on an implicit assumption that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is inapplicable in juvenile proceedings”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 Ill. 2d 338 - In Re JT

2. “It should be apparent that resolution of the appeal in the case at bar is dependent on deciding whether the Post-Conviction Hearing Act applies to juvenile proceedings. For this reason, the court has no discretion to avoid addressing the issue. The issue needs to be confronted head on”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 Ill. 2d 338 - In Re JT

3. “[a] question of such magnitude should be fully briefed and argued by opposing parties zealously advocating the relevant arguments prior to its definitive resolution by this court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 Ill. 2d 338 - In Re JT