107 Ill. 2d 62 - People v. Wick’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 147 Ill. 2d 326 - People v. Frieberg (1992), 137 Ill. 2d 500 - People v. Thomas (1990)
155 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 6 Ill. 2d 152 - Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. · 85 Ill. 2d 92 - People of Illinois v. Cramer · 72 Ill. 2d 131 - Finish Line Express, Inc. v. City of Chicago · 65 Ill. 2d 453 - Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections · 40 Ill. 2d 224 - Hirschfield v. Barrett
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A person commits aggravated arson when by means of fire or explosive he knowingly damages, partially or totally, any building or structure, including any adjacent building or structure, and *** (3) a fireman or policeman who is present at the scene acting in the line of duty, is injured as a result of the fire or explosion.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 20 — 1.1(a).)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Under this statute, for example, a farmer who demolishes his deteriorated barn to clear space for a new one is liable for a Class X penalty if a fireman standing by is injured at the scene. If the statute's purpose is to provide a severe penalty for arsonists whose conduct results in personal injury to firemen or policemen, the statute does not bear a reasonable relationship to its purpose because the penalty is not limited to arsonists. Moreover, a statute that subjects a person having no culpable intent to a Class X penalty is not a reasonable means of ensuring that arsonists are so punished." Wick, 107 Ill.2d at 66 , 89 Ill. Dec. 833 , 481 N.E.2d 676 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Pepitone · People v. K.C.“[T]he question of whether a legislative exercise of the police power meets the constitutional requirement of due process involves [1] identifying the public interest that the statute is intended to protect, [2] examining whether the statute `bears a reasonable relationship' to that interest, and [3] determining whether the method used to protect or further that interest is `reasonable.'”
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.