371 Ill. App. 3d 701 - People v. Learn’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
August 2014
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Davis v. Alaska · Davis v. Washington · 122 Ill. 2d 176 - People v. Enoch · 224 Ill. 2d 172 - In re E.H., a Minor
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“THE COURT: Well, she is not unavailable because she is here. So the key is did she testify at the proceedings. She did testify at the proceedings. I found her to be competent. And if you wish to cross examine, then you can certainly cross examine and I'm not going to sustain any objections with respect to scope concerning the event because Mr. Newsome [the assistant State's Attorney] did in fact talk about places and people in this case, so [it] has opened the door to any of that anyway. So I am not going to overrule Judge Starck with respect to his findings because I didn't hear those particular statements. But I would find that the prong of having the child testify at the proceedings has been fulfilled. So if you wish to cross examine, you certainly can do that. So bring the child in here.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Learn · People v. Learn“when asked if she had ever told her parents a lie about Jimmy or if she had ever told her dad anything about him. The State then presented the testimony of C.O., Stokes, and Montemayor, who all testified similarly to the statements they had previously made to the court. Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting K.O.'s out-of-court statements as substantive evidence at trial. We agree. Section 115--10 of the Code, which allows for certain hearsay exceptions, provides in part:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Learn · People v. Learn“When C.O. asked why she did not say anything before, she responded that she was scared. Defendant lived in the same house as K.O.'s grandmother, who babysat K.O. almost every day while C.O. and his wife worked. Until December 26, 2003, K.O. never mentioned anything about defendant making her touch his private parts. The trial court ruled:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Learn · People v. Learn
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.