People v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 10 Ill. 2d 87 - Hudson v. Leverenz · 109 Ill. App. 2d 202 - Trapani v. Trapani · 43 Ill. App. 2d 95 - People Ex Rel. Dalman v. O'MALLEY · 40 Ill. App. 2d 341 - LaLacker v. Stuckey
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Civil Practice Act, which governs in paternity actions in the absence of any contrary statement in the Paternity Act itself (1967 Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 106%, § 64) does allow a late motion for a jury trial (1967 Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, § 59; see, also, 1967 Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, Supreme Court Rule 183). Under both the statute and the rule, the motion will be granted but only for good cause shown. In addition, there must be notice to the other party, and the court need grant such motion only in its discretion. See, e.g., Hudson v. Leverenz, 10 Ill.2d 87 , 139 N.E.2d 255 . In this case the motion for a jury demand was not made following notice to plaintiff, nor was good cause shown by the defendant. Indeed, in this instance no cause was shown at all. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for a jury trial. The defendant had appeared five times before the trial court without making any demand for a jury trial. See Trapani v. Trapani, 109 Ill.App.2d 202 , 248 N.E.2d 294 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every application for a change of venue shall be by petition, setting forth the cause of the application and praying a change of venue, which petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the applicant.””
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.