People v. Barkan’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 58 Ill. 2d 187 - People v. Krantz · 52 Ill. 2d 403 - People v. Goerger · 47 Ill. 2d 114 - The PEOPLE v. Spicer · 43 Ill. 2d 124 - The PEOPLE v. Morris · 39 Ill. 2d 96 - The PEOPLE v. Orndoff
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Our post-conviction statute requires that a petition invoking its provisions contain factual allegations which make a substantial showing that in the criminal trial there was a deprivation of constitutional rights. (citation omitted) Mere conclusional allegations are wholly inadequate. (citation omitted) Before a post-conviction petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, he must, in his petition plead factual allegations which, if true, show that constitutional rights were violated. (citation omitted) If he does not, his petition may be dismissed without a hearing. (citations omitted) And in deciding whether he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, the trial court may look at and examine the record and transcript in order to determine the sufficiency of the post-conviction petition. (citations omitted)." People v. Barkan, 30 Ill. App.3d 305 , 332 N.E.2d 527, 530 (1975). (Footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rogers
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.