84 Ill. 2d 480 - People v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2023
22 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · 68 Ill. 2d 158 - People v. Wipfler · 34 Ill. 2d 516 - The PEOPLE v. Braden · 82 Ill. 2d 250 - People v. Flatt
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In our opinion it is also within the discretion of a trial court to entertain a motion to suppress evidence made after trial has begun based on a violation of the principles announced in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 . As the Supreme Court said in Miranda: ‘The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.’ ( 384 U.S. 436, 476 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 725 , 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1629 .) To hold that the circuit court was without discretion to hear an untimely motion to suppress in these circumstances would jeopardize the integrity of the constitutional principles upon which Miranda rests. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in hearing defendant’s motion to suppress. * * * Once raised, the issue became one which the People were required to meet. As the Supreme Court said in Miranda: ‘[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.’ [Citations.]” People v. Hoffman (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 480, 485-86 .”
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.