332 Ill. App. 3d 834 - Mason v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 226 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Vincent (2007), 347 Ill. App. 3d 468 - People v. Bramlett (2004)
87 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 63 Ill. 2d 128 - First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. · 291 Ill. App. 3d 927 - Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co. · Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board · 126 Ill. App. 3d 1024 - Rhodes v. Mill Race Inn, Inc. · 325 Ill. App. 3d 736 - Hatch v. Szymanski
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]rial courts may evaluate such petitions to determine their sufficiency, particularly when filed by [IDOC] inmates. In so concluding, we take judicial notice of our own records, which show an ever-increasing number of appeals brought by inmates in such cases, as well as the fact that [IDOC] currently houses over 46,000 inmates. The potential to overwhelm the courts and the civil justice system by the filing of groundless [IDOC] inmate mandamus petitions is clear and real, and one first step to deal with this situation is to recognize the trial court's authority to evaluate such petitions for their sufficiency." Mason, 332 Ill.App.3d at 840 , 266 Ill.Dec. 351 , 774 N.E.2d 457 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he trial courts, which have the inherent authority to control their courtrooms and their dockets, have the corollary authority to utilize their discretion in dealing with `professional litigants' who inappropriately burden the court system with nonmeritorious litigation, stemming from their unhappiness as DOC inmates." Mason, 332 Ill.App.3d at 842 , 266 Ill.Dec. 351 , 774 N.E.2d at 463-64 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Mandamus is appropriate relief only where a petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the requested relief, the respondent’s clear duty to act, and the respondent’s clear authority to comply with the terms of the writ. [Citation.] The party requesting a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating a clear right to the relief desired.” Romero v. O’Sullivan, 302 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1034 , 707 N.E.2d 986, 988 (1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.