Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 Ill. App. 3d 187 - People v. Wright

105 Ill. App. 3d 187 - People v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2000

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

60198219902000decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Scott · 51 Ill. 2d 229 - People v. Handley · 81 Ill. 2d 278 - People v. Goodman · 60 Ill. 2d 37 - People v. Bailey

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

  1. ““33-1. Bribery *** Bribery. A person commits bribery when: (d) He receives, retains or agrees to accept any property or personal advantage which he is not authorized by law to accept knowing that such property or personal advantage was promised or tendered with intent to cause him to influence the performance of any act related to the employment or function of any public officer, public employee, juror or witness; or (e) He solicits, receives, retains, or agrees to accept any property or personal advantage pursuant to an understanding that he shall improperly influence or attempt to influence the performance of any act related to the employment or function of any public officer, public employee, juror or witness.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 33 — 1(d), (e).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘which is specifically designed to provoke a mistrial in order to secure a second — and perhaps more favorable — opportunity to convict the accused [citations]; or *** which is motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice the accused [citations].’ ” People v. Wright (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 187, 189 .”
    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.