224 Ill. 2d 37 - People v. Suarez’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
371 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 382 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 238 Ill. 2d 598 - People v. Thompson (2010), 229 Ill. 2d 34 - People v. Perkins (2008)
371 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Payne v. Tennessee · 183 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Coleman · 153 Ill. 2d 264 - People v. Flores · 216 Ill. 2d 481 - People v. Sharpe
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 382 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]emand is required where postconviction counsel failed to fulfill the duties of consultation, examining the record, and amendment of the pro se petition, regardless of whether the claims raised in the petition had merit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Jones · People v. Ross““There is no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in postconviction proceedings; the right to counsel is wholly statutory (see 725 ILCS 5/122—4 (West 2000)), and petitioners are only entitled to the level of assistance provided for by the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) [citations]. The Act provides for a reasonable level of assistance. [Citation.] To ensure that postconviction petitioners receive this level of assistance, Rule 651(c) imposes specific duties on postconviction counsel.” People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 42 , 862 N.E.2d 977 (2007).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not 6 adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Jones · People v. Ross
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.