52 Ill. 2d 250 - People v. McAdrian’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 211 Ill. 2d 502 - People v. Pitman (2004), 136 Ill. 2d 66 - People v. Foskey (1990)
3 federal appellate · 113 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 8 Ill. 2d 293 - Belfield v. Coop · 11 Ill. 2d 360 - The People v. Burson · 36 Ill. 2d 524 - The People v. Fosdick · 38 Ill. 2d 446 - The People v. Washington · 38 Ill. 2d 368 - City of Chicago v. Joyce
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he failure to urge a particular theory before the trial court will often cause the opposing party to refrain from presenting available pertinent rebuttal evidence on such theory, which evidence could have a positive bearing on the disposition of the case in both the trial and reviewing courts”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Insubstantial and Substantial Errors on Appeal. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he real issue, when a charge against a defendant is dismissed and he is later reindicted on the same offense, may be whether the circumstances suggest that the State is seeking to evade the consequences of the [statutory] rule, or whether the delay, in any event, would constitute a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.””
2 later decisions 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.