102 Ill. 2d 201 - People v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 239 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 251 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 122 Ill. 2d 221 - People v. Gacho (1988), 202 Ill. 2d 328 - People v. Miller (2002)
6 federal appellate · 239 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 82 Ill. 2d 268 - People v. Cox · 88 Ill. 2d 482 - People v. La Pointe · 77 Ill. 2d 531 - People Ex Rel. Carey v. Cousins · 93 Ill. 2d 155 - People v. Davis · 84 Ill. 2d 42 - Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs
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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A sentence of imprisonment for a felony shall be a determinant sentence set by the court under this Section, according to the following limitations: (1) for murder, *** (b) if the court finds that the murder was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty *** the court may sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment, or (c) if the defendant *** is found guilty of murdering more than one victim, the court shall sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment ***.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"There is a presumption of the validity of legislative classifications. [Citations.] We conclude that the legislature considered the possible rehabilitation of an offender, as well as the seriousness of the offense of multiple murders, in determining that in the public interest there must be a mandatory minimum sentence of natural life imprisonment. The rehabilitative objective of article I, section 11, should not and does not prevent the legislature from fixing mandatory minimum penalties where it has been determined that no set of mitigating circumstances could allow a proper penalty of less than natural life for the crimes of two or more murders. It is within the legislative province to define offenses and determine the penalties required to protect the interest of our society.” (Taylor, 102 Ill. 2d at 206 , 464 N.E.2d at 1062 .)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Section 11 is directed to the legislature in its function of declaring what conduct is criminal and the penalties for the conduct. It is directed to the judiciary in that it requires courts not to abuse discretion in imposing sentences within the framework set by the legislature. [Citations.]"”
6 later decisions 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.