← 61 Ill. App. 3d 521 - People v. Strubberg

61 Ill. App. 3d 521 - People v. Strubberg’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

cited by 18 later decisions

states following

October 2023

most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2023

18 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 68 Ill. 2d 149 - People v. Perruquet · 33 Ill. 2d 417 - The People v. Taylor · 28 Ill. 2d 116 - The People v. Carpenter · 43 Ill. 2d 375 - The PEOPLE v. Nuccio · 60 Ill. 2d 37 - People v. Bailey

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

““Where *** the guilt of the accused is not manifest, but is dependent upon the degree of credibility accorded by the trier of fact to his testimony and that of the witnesses who testify on his behalf, and there appear in the record substantial numbers of unsupported insinuations which, if considered, could have seriously impeached the credibility of the defendant and his witnesses, and there is no indication of the court’s awareness of this impropriety even though it is brought to his attention, it is our opinion that justice and fundamental fairness demand that the defendant be afforded a new trial free from such prejudicial misconduct.” ( 43 Ill. 2d 375, 396 , 253 N.E.2d 353, 364 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. People v. Daniels
““[I]t constitutes error when a prosecutor presents evidence of a prior statement of a witness implicating a defendant in the crime being tried for the purpose of having the trier of fact consider such statement as substantive evidence rather than merely for the purpose of impeachment.” 61 Ill. App. 3d 521, 527 ; see People v. Montgomery (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 198 , 282 N.E.2d 138 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 101 Ill. App. 3d 397 - People v. Giangrande

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.