Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Ill. App. 3d 855 - People v. Ammons

120 Ill. App. 3d 855 - People v. Ammons’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably 137 Ill. App. 3d 171 - People v. Morrison (1985), 181 Ill. 2d 541 - People v. Hicks (1998)

36 state decisions

200198319902000decided

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 United States v. Hasting · 66 Ill. 2d 551 - People v. King · Greene v. Massey · 76 Ill. 2d 19 - People v. Baptist · 91 Ill. 2d 536 - People v. Huckstead

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

  1. ““Under subsection (1) [of the home invasion statute], there must be a threat with a dangerous weapon to any person or persons, or (2) intentional injury to any person or persons. This language can be contrasted with other statutes, e.g., battery [citation], where the conduct is phrased as against an individual, meaning that there can be a separate count for every individual involved. Because the wording of the statute indicates a legislative intent to impose one count of home invasion for one unlawful entry of one dwelling, defendants’ convictions and sentences for [one of the counts] must be vacated.” 120 Ill. App. 3d 855, 861 .”
    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.