233 Ill. 2d 89 - People v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 117 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The [United States Supreme] Court explained that the confrontation clause gives an accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, which has been read as securing an adequate opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. [Citation.] *** The Court additionally held that its analysis was not altered by the fact that the testimony at issue involved an out-of-court statement that would traditionally be characterized as hearsay, and declined to require the testimony be examined for indicia of reliability, concluding that such an inquiry was not required when the hearsay declarant is present at trial and subject to unrestricted cross-examination. [Citation.] In that case, “the traditional protections of the oath, cross-examination, and opportunity for the jury to observe the witness’ demeanor satisfy the constitutional requirements.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” Bryant, 391 Ill. App. 3d at 1092 , 909 N.E.2d at 408 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 392 Ill. App. 3d 108 - People v. Kitch · 391 Ill. App. 3d 1072 - People v. Bryant

2. “For the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule to apply, 'there must be an occurrence sufficiently startling to produce a spontaneous and unreflecting statement, there must be an absence of time for the declarant to fabricate the statement, and the statement must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Darr · 357 Ill. Dec. 477 - People v. Burney

3. ““[E]ven if the law of the case bars relitigation of the issue in the appellate court, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to this court in reviewing a decision of the appellate court. People v. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d 463, 488 (1985). Because this is the first time the case has been before this court, we may review all matters which were properly raised and passed on in the course of the litigation. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d at 488 .” (Emphasis added.) Sutton, 233 Ill. 2d at 100 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Ill. 2d 453 - People v. Hopkins