80 Ill. App. 3d 335 - People v. Reddick’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 67 Ill. 2d 449 - People v. Lawson · 61 Ill. 2d 303 - People Ex Rel. Wilcox v. Equity Funding Life Insurance · 31 Ill. App. 3d 892 - People v. Benford · 66 Ill. App. 3d 163 - People v. Harrawood · 73 Ill. App. 3d 361 - People v. Lewis
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““° 9 9 Where there has been a delay between an alleged crime and indictment or arrest or accusation, the defendant must come forward with a clear showing of actual and substantial prejudice. Mere assertion of inability to recall is insufficient. If the accused satisfies the trial court that he or she has been substantially prejudiced by the delay, then the burden shifts to the State to show the reasonableness, if not the necessity, of the delay. If this two-step process ascertains both substantial prejudice and reasonableness of a delay, then the court must make a determination based upon a balancing of the interests of the defendant and the public. Factors the court should consider, among others, are the length of the delay and the seriousness of the crime.””
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.