68 Ill. 2d 276 - People v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 124 Ill. App. 3d 363 - People v. Harbold (1984), 175 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Kidd (1996)
47 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 53 Ill. 2d 228 - People v. Newbury · Gannon v. People · 5 Ill. 2d 409 - People v. Palumbo · Mahlstedt v. Ideal Lighting Co. · 39 Ill. App. 3d 661 - People v. Simpson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Communications in the presence and hearing of a third party are generally not considered to be confidential communications within that privilege. ( People v. Palumbo (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 409 , 414-15, 125 N.E.2d 518 .) It is likewise apparent that one in whose presence a communication between spouses is made may testify to that conversation, even though the witness overheard the conversation by eavesdropping. Similarly, one may testify who learns the contents of a written communication from one spouse to another by interception, or through loss or misdelivery by the custodian. McCormick, Evidence sec. 82, at 167 (2d ed. 1972).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[y]es, but I told you later I was lying.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We deem it clear that Kasten’s [assistant State’s Attorney] report of the wife’s police station statement was admissible to explain the bare words of defendant’s public admission, ‘Yes.’ Her statement gave meaning to the defendant’s otherwise incomprehensible statement above, and merely revealed what the defendant thereby admitted to having said.” (Simpson, 68 Ill. 2d 276, 282 , 369 N.E.2d 1248, 1252 .)”
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.