345 Ill. App. 3d 175 - People v. Shellstrom’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 216 Ill. 2d 45 - People v. Shellstrom (2005), 347 Ill. App. 3d 468 - People v. Bramlett (2004)
34 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 181 Ill. 2d 512 - Woods v. Cole · 291 Ill. App. 3d 927 - Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co. · 332 Ill. App. 3d 834 - Mason v. Snyder · 313 Ill. App. 3d 1 - Peterson v. Randhava · 189 Ill. 2d 424 - People v. Kitchen
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]e should not attempt to remedy this concern by reading into the mandamus statute a summary dismissal procedure that is not there. The procedural framework of mandamus actions is not a policy issue for the courts to decide, but rather, a legislative decision to be made by the General Assembly. Accordingly, it is the province of the legislature, not the judiciary, to amend the statute to allow for summary dismissals." Shellstrom, 345 Ill.App.3d at 178 , 280 Ill.Dec. 456 , 802 N.E.2d 381 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, with the rules governing petitions for mandamus clearly laid out, we conclude that trial courts may evaluate such petitions to determine their sufficiency, particularly when filed by DOC 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 DOC currently houses over 46,000 inmates. The potential to overwhelm the courts and the civil justice system by the filing of groundless DOC 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. * * * * * * [W]e now conclude that the 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 non-meritorious litigation, stemming from their unhappiness as DOC inmates.”
4 later decisions 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.