232 Ill. 2d 113 - People v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
294 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 304 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 238 Ill. 2d 598 - People v. Thompson (2010), 234 Ill. 2d 32 - People v. Lewis (2009)
294 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 Ungar v. Sarafite · 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch · 225 Ill. 2d 551 - People v. Piatkowski · 229 Ill. 2d 584 - People v. Naylor · 169 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Keene
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 304 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurs and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurs and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Smith · People v. Green“`These powers enable the circuit court simultaneously to protect the legitimate rights of defendants, maintain respect for its calendar, and satisfy the public's interest in the fair and efficient prosecution of those accused of crime.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Whether there has been an abuse of discretion necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case [citations], and `[t]here is no mechanical test * * * for determining the point at which the denial of a continuance in order to accelerate the judicial proceedings violates the substantive right of the accused to properly defend.' [Citation.] Factors a court may consider in determining whether to grant a continuance request by a defendant in a criminal case include the movant's diligence, the defendant's right to a speedy, fair and impartial trial and the interests of justice. [Citations.] Other relevant factors include whether counsel for defendant was unable to prepare for trial because he or she had been held to trial in another cause [citation], * * * the complexity of the matter [citation], the seriousness of the charges [citation], as well as docket management, judicial economy and inconvenience to the parties and witnesses [citation]." Id. at 125-26 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.