10 Ill. 2d 269 - Cooper v. Hinrichs’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 - In Re Marriage of Hunt (1979), Maiter v. Chicago Board of Education (1980)
78 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 Purinton v. Jamrock · In Re Adoption of Duren v. Hicks · State ex rel. Baker v. Bird · Simmons v. State · James v. Holy Family Adoption Service
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"That the legislature used the word `shall' in providing for the setting of a hearing within 30 days will not require an interpretation that the provision is mandatory and not directory. In Cooper v. Hindrichs, 10 Ill.2d 269, 272 , this court said: `The terms of the statute do not themselves indicate unequivocally whether the statute is mandatory or discretionary in character. The word "shall" appearing therein does not have an exclusive, fixed or inviolate connotation, and has been construed as meaning both "must" and "may," depending upon the legislative intent.'" ( 59 Ill.2d 102, 104 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although the GAL, has argued that the jurisdictional provisions of the Act cannot be subject to construction in conjunction with the best interest provisions of Sections 15 and 20a, the Court has concluded to the contrary. * * * * * * Pursuant to Sections 15 and 20a, the legislature directs the Court to look to the welfare and best interests of the child for the interpretation of its enactment. * * * In this statutory evaluation, the Court has determined that in this case the interpretive directions of Section 20a, and the overall goal of the Act contained in Section 15, as set forth by the legislature, must prevail in an evaluation of legislative purpose."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Upon timely application anyone may in the discretion of the court be permitted to intervene in an action *** (b) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110, par. 26.1(2)(b).)”
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.