105 Ill. 2d 310 - People v. Steppan’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
314 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 316 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 216 Ill. 2d 481 - People v. Sharpe (2005), 202 Ill. 2d 328 - People v. Miller (2002)
314 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 68 Ill. 2d 149 - People v. Perruquet · 88 Ill. 2d 482 - People v. La Pointe · 63 Ill. 2d 534 - People v. Bratcher · 102 Ill. 2d 201 - People v. Taylor · 79 Ill. 2d 410 - People v. Bradley
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 316 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`This court has traditionally been reluctant to override the judgment of the General Assembly with respect to criminal penalties. It indicated at an early date that the constitutional command that "penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense" would justify interference with the legislative judgment only if the punishment was "cruel," "degrading" or "so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community."` ([ People v. Gonzales (1962)] 25 Ill.2d 235, 240 [, 184 N.E.2d 833 ].)" ( Steppan, 105 Ill.2d at 320 , 85 Ill.Dec. 495 , 473 N.E.2d 1300 .)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b) The court shall not impose a consecutive sentence unless, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, it is of the opinion that such a term is required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant, the basis for which the court shall set forth in the record.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-4(b).)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] reviewing court should not substitute its judgment or preference as to punishment for that of the sentencing court. The trial court is ordinarily best situated to tailor a sentence or other disposition to the needs of the case. It balances the appropriate factors in imposing sentence, and the exercise of this discretion should not be altered upon review absent abuse of that discretion.” People v. Steppan (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 310, 323 , 473 N.E.2d 1300 , citing People v. Hicks (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 366, 375 , 462 N.E.2d 473 .”
3 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.