216 Ill. 2d 45 - People v. Shellstrom’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 228 Ill. 2d 95 - People v. Smith (2008), 387 Ill. App. 3d 630 - People v. Collier (2008)
139 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Castro v. United States · 201 Ill. 2d 95 - Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education · People v. Pinkonsly
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) notify the pro se litigant that the court intends to recharacterize the pleading, (2) warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent postconviction petition will be subject to the restrictions on successive postconviction petitions, and (3) provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the pleading or to amend it so that it contains all the claims appropriate to a postconviction petition that the litigant believes he or she has.” Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 57 , 833 N.E.2d at 870 .”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““A person seeking relief by filing a petition under this Section must specify in the petition or its heading that it is filed under this Section. A trial court that has received a petition complaining of a conviction or sentence that fails to specify in the petition or its heading that it is filed under this Section need not evaluate the petition to determine whether it could otherwise have stated some grounds for relief under this Article.” (Emphasis added.) 725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(d) (West 2006).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“show[ ] cause by identifying an objective factor that impeded his or her ability to raise a specific claim during his or her initial post-conviction proceedings,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.