236 Ill. 2d 57 - People v. Sandoval’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
April 2025
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 195 Ill. 2d 42 - People v. Crane · 159 Ill. 2d 419 - People v. Staten · 232 Ill. 2d 330 - People v. Van Schoyck · 219 Ill. 2d 166 - People v. Wooddell
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has repeatedly recognized that ‘ “defendants *** serving prison terms for existing convictions at the time they face trial on additional charges *** do not suffer a loss of liberty while awaiting trial on the pending charges.” ’ Wooddell, 219 Ill. 2d at 175 [, 847 N.E.2d at 122 ], quoting [People v. Staten, 159 Ill. 2d 419, 428 , 639 N.E.2d 550, 555 (1994)]. The legislature has chosen to impose additional demand requirements on those individuals not applicable to others. In Staten, this court rejected the notion that the additional conditions imposed by the legislature in section 3 — 8—10 are ‘meaningless’ or mere technicalities, finding that the information required was properly mandated ‘for the administrative convenience of the State’ and that the legislature intended to place the burden of compliance on the demanding defendant who, as noted, is already incarcerated and thus suffers no additional loss of liberty. Staten, 159 Ill. 2d at 428 [, 639 N.E.2d at 555 ]. In Staten, this court insisted that a demand under section 3 — 8—10 be unambiguous. Staten, 159 Ill. 2d at 428-29 [, 639 N.E.2d at 555-56 ] (citing, approvingly, appellate court cases that put the demand burden upon the defendant and require a ‘clear and unequivocal’ demand). *** *** The balancing inherent in our speedy-trial statute is the prerogative of the legislature. Taking into account the pertinent statutes, authorities, and principles, it is our opinion, given the facts of this case, that the c”
1 later decision 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.