107 Ill. App. 3d 368 - People v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2007
4 federal appellate · 14 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 87 Ill. 2d 216 - People v. Ogunsola · 65 Ill. 2d 258 - People v. Williams · 29 Ill. App. 3d 1053 - People v. Harling · 16 Ill. App. 3d 267 - People v. Cundiff · 22 Ill. App. 3d 727 - People v. Everhart
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Sec. 17 — 1. Deceptive practices. (B) General Deception A person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud: (d) With intent to obtain control over property or to pay for property, labor or services of another he issues or delivers a check or other order upon a real or fictitious depository for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be paid by the depository. Failure to have sufficient funds or credit with the depository when the check or other order is issued or delivered is prima facie evidence that the offender knows that it will not be paid by the depository, and that he has the intent to defraud; ***.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 17-l(B)(d).)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sumner, while agreeing that the State presented enough evidence to establish a statutorily adequate prime facie case, argues that his own testimony was legally sufficient to establish a reasonable defense showing that he lacked the necessary intent to defraud. Therefore, Sumner claims, the presumption of guilt established by the State's prima facie case was rebutted, and the prosecution was required to refute his defense by presenting convincing proof that Sumner had the requisite intent to defraud when he issued the check in question. We agree with Sumner.”
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.