369 Ill. App. 3d 683 - Dye v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2021
2 federal appellate · 11 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · 325 Ill. App. 3d 736 - Hatch v. Szymanski · 308 Ill. App. 3d 255 - Helm v. Washington · 336 Ill. App. 3d 567 - Armstrong v. Snyder · 351 Ill. App. 3d 1120 - Cannon v. Quinley
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"` Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, the performance of official duties by a public official where the official is not exercising discretion. A court will not grant a writ of mandamus unless the petitioner can demonstrate a clear, affirmative right to relief, a clear duty of the official to act, and clear authority in the official to comply with the writ. The writ will not lie when its effect is to substitute the court's judgment or discretion for the official's judgment or discretion. Mandamus relief, therefore, is not appropriate to regulate a course of official conduct or to enforce the performance of official duties generally.'" Dye v. Pierce, 369 Ill.App.3d 683, 686-87 , 311 Ill.Dec. 293 , 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (2006) (quoting Hatch v. Szymanski, 325 Ill.App.3d 736, 739 , 259 Ill.Dec. 805 , 759 N.E.2d 585, 588 (2001)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(1) notice of the disciplinary charges at least 24 hours prior to the hearing; (2) when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in their defense; and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on in finding the inmate guilty of committing the offense and the reasons for the disciplinary action." Dye, 369 Ill.App.3d at 687 , 311 Ill.Dec. 293 , 868 N.E.2d at 296 .”
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.