Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Ill. App. 3d 191 - People v. Bailey

10 Ill. App. 3d 191 - People v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 2003
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2003

11 state decisions

701973198019902000decided

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 106 Ill. App. 2d 430 - People v. Spears · People v. Plocar

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

  1. ““On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the indictment is void. In pertinent part the indictment charged: * * that Johnny Bailey * * * committed the offense of AGGRAVATED BATTERY in violation of Paragraph 12—4, Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1969, in that he, the defendant, knowing one Paul Nusbaum to then and there be a police officer of the City of Dixon, Illinois, did intentionally and knowingly without legal justification, cause bodily harm to the said Paul Nusbaum by kicking him * * *.’ Although no subsection of Section 12—4 is set forth in the indictment, we presume from the verbiage used that defendant was charged under Section 12—4(b) (6), which provides that a person is guilty of aggravated battery who: ‘* * * in committing a battery * * * knows the individual harmed to be a peace officer * * * engaged in the execution of any of his official duties * * *.’ According to this statute, a simple battery inflicted upon a police officer constitutes an aggravated battery only if the officer is ‘engaged in the execution of any of his official duties.’ See People v. Spears, 106 Ill.App.2d 430, 435-436 (1969). The instant indictment does not set forth an essential element of the offense in that there is no allegation that the police officer was engaged in the execution of his official duties. This element cannot be inferred, as the State alleges, from the wording “knowing one Paul Nusbaum, to then and there be a police officer.’ ” ( 10 Ill.App.3d 192 .)”
    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.