356 Ill. Dec. 384 - People v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 197 Ill. 2d 514 - Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher · People v. Daily Journal of Kankakee · 208 Ill. 2d 148 - In Re Andrea F. · 127 Ill. 2d 247 - In Re a Minor · 96 Ill. 2d 273 - People Ex Rel. Black v. Dukes
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As the State correctly notes, however, the defendant is challenging an alleged misinterpretation of a capital case rule when he did not receive a capital sentence. There is no evidence to suggest that the trial court's decision to impose a term of years was influenced in any way by the defendant's eligibility for the death penalty, and his argument to the contrary is speculative. The trial court's decision was an intervening event that made it impossible to grant the defendant relief from the State's purported violation of Rule 416(c). This appeal is moot." Id. ¶ 7.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he mootness doctrine provides that we must dismiss an appeal when the issues involved have ceased to exist because intervening events have made it impossible for us to grant effectual relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate this decision was influenced by the fact that the defendant was death-eligible.”
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.