People v. C.S.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2025
9 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 202 Ill. 2d 393 - People v. Mary Ann P. · 339 Ill. App. 3d 778 - In Re John R. · 379 Ill. App. 3d 251 - People v. Alaka W. · People v. Dorothy J.N. · 373 Ill. App. 3d 332 - In Re Dorothy JN
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where, as here, an expert testifies, he must support his opinions with specific facts or testimony as to the bases of those opinions. [Citation.] An expert’s testimony, without more, is not enough to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard. [Citation.] The statutory scheme of the Code requires ‘specific evidence [of] the benefits and risks of each medication *** so that the trial court may determine whether the State can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of the proposed treatment outweigh the potential harm.’ [Citation.]” In re C.S., 383 Ill. App. 3d at 452 , 890 N.E.2d at 1010-11 .”
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.