105 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 163 state decisions

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

1. ““There was ample opportunity for her to complete her crime if, in fact, she intended to kill the child. Further, following Shannon’s loss of consciousness, defendant applied a cool cloth and ultimately took her to the hospital for emergency medical attention, actions which are not consistent with an attempt to murder. This court has previously acknowledged that abandonment of the intent to kill, once the elements of attempted murder are complete, is no defense to the crime. [Citation.] Here, however, considering all of the circumstances, the proof is, in our judgment, simply insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed the requisite intent to kill. [Citations.]” Mitchell, 105 Ill. 2d at 10 , 473 N.E.2d at 1274 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Pearson · 151 Ill. App. 3d 402 - People v. Winters

2. ““This court long ago recognized that any evidence which tends to show that an accused had a motive for killing is relevant. However, with reference to insurance policies, this court has required proof of the existence of such a policy and its relationship to the defendant. In People v. Gougas (1951), 410 Ill. 235, 239 , 102 N.E.2d 152 , this court determined that the admission of evidence of a life insurance policy must be predicated upon evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of its existence, its validity, or believed validity, and that he will benefit therefrom.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 So. 3d 32 - VanPelt v. State

3. ““Specifically, defendant contends that her trial counsel erred by failing to object in an appropriate and timely manner or to raise several readily apparent legal questions during trial. Initially, we note that any evaluation of counsel’s conduct cannot properly extend into areas involving the exercise of judgment, discretion or trial tactics. Counsel is entitled to great deference in this court’s evaluation of his conduct.” (Mitchell, 105 Ill. 2d at 12 , 473 N.E.2d at 1275 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 231 Ill. App. 3d 813 - People v. Flores