124 Ill. App. 3d 516 - People v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
161 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 122 Ill. 2d 221 - People v. Gacho (1988), 167 Ill. 2d 397 - People v. Robinson (1995)
161 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 76 Ill. 2d 19 - People v. Baptist · 62 Ill. 2d 448 - People v. McDonald · 84 Ill. 2d 350 - People v. Jackson · 66 Ill. 2d 317 - People v. Monroe · 43 Ill. 2d 375 - The PEOPLE v. Nuccio
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t should be noted that prosecutors have recently begun to take improper advantage of the admissibility of such evidence by ostensibly offering it for the limited purpose, and, once it is admitted, making impermissible use thereof in closing argument [citation], and we would warn that this conduct is improper and, in flagrant cases, may lead to reversal [citation]. If the State indeed intends to use it for the limited purpose permitted, the prosecutor should confine his arguments to that purpose, and any improper use should not be tolerated.” ( 124 Ill. App. 3d 516, 530-31 , 464 N.E.2d 659 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Such testimony is not hearsay because it is based on the officer’s own personal knowledge, and is admissible although the inference logically to be drawn therefrom is that the information received motivated the officer’s subsequent conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The fact that he (Officer Saragosa) gave out information is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, not being offered for the truth of the information received or disseminated. It is only being offered to bring to your knowledge the course of the investigation. Whatever information he received or disseminated would be hearsay and is not being admitted for the truth of what was said but only to explain the course of the investigation.””
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.