Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 U.S. 400 - Taylor v. Illinois

Taylor v. Illinois’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

3,174
cited by 3,174 later decisions
39
cited 39 times by the Supreme Court
48
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

849 federal appellate · 126 district · 1,368 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,174 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Puckett v. United States (2009), Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu (1988)

849 federal appellate · 126 district · 1,368 state decisions — followed in 48 states

1.1k019881990200020102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Nixon · Washington v. Texas · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Cited together with Chambers v. Mississippi · Strickland v. Washington · Washington v. Texas · Rock v. Arkansas · Williams v. Taylor

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 3,174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.”
    225 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]lthough there are basic rights that the attorney cannot waive without the fully informed and publicly acknowledged consent of the client, the lawyer has — and must have — full authority to manage the conduct of the trial. The adversary process could not function effectively if every tactical decision required client approval.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve,”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.