Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 225 Ill. 2d 246 - People v. Stechly

225 Ill. 2d 246 - People v. Stechly’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

210
cited by 210 later decisions
15
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 194 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 210 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 235 Ill. 2d 97 - People v. Lovejoy (2009), 232 Ill. 2d 13 - People v. Rolandis G. (2008)

7 federal appellate · 194 state decisions — followed in 15 states

1130200720102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas

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

  1. “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.