Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 Ill. App. 3d 733 - Ashley v. Pierson

339 Ill. App. 3d 733 - Ashley v. Pierson’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 355 Ill. App. 3d 317 - People v. Young (2005), 354 Ill. App. 3d 699 - Legion Ins. v. EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. (2004)

39 state decisions

180200320102020decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · 174 Ill. 2d 77 - Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc. · 198 Ill. 2d 87 - People v. Philip Morris, Inc. · 69 Ill. 2d 108 - People Ex Rel. Casey v. Health & Hospitals Governing Commission · Van Molligan v. The Board of Fire & Police Commisioners of the Village of Glenview

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'the administrative expense and burden of conducting reviews so long after the completion of the original proceedings would be substantial.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a defendant asserts laches as a bar to a plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus , the plaintiff's lack of due diligence is established by a showing that more than six months elapsed between the accrual of the cause of action and the filing of the petition, unless the plaintiff provides a reasonable excuse for the delay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “such detriment and inconvenience exists in cases where inmates file petitions for writs of mandamus more than six months after the completion of the original DOC disciplinary proceedings and no reasonable excuse exists for the delay.”
    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.