Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Ill. App. 3d 636 - People v. Epps

143 Ill. App. 3d 636 - People v. Epps’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 183 Ill. App. 3d 785 - People v. Hattery (1989), 222 Ill. App. 3d 631 - People v. Hartzol (1991)

3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

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 103 Ill. 2d 192 - People v. Jordan · 105 Ill. 2d 310 - People v. Steppan · 94 Ill. 2d 514 - People v. Bryant · 101 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Hicks · 111 Ill. 2d 180 - People v. Neal

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

  1. ““[T]he controlling factor that determines a youngster’s ability to testify is the degree of a child’s intelligence, rather than mere chronological age. A child may testify if he is sufficiently mature to receive correct impressions by means of his senses, to recollect and narrate intelligently, and to appreciate the moral duty to articulate the truth. [Citations.] A court of review will not reverse the trial court’s decision to allow a child to testify unless the lower court abused its discretion [citation], or unless it is clear that the court misapprehended a legal principle [citation].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`the legislature has apparently recognized that consecutive sentences serve a useful purpose, for it has provided for mandatory consecutive sentences in certain circumstances' [citation] and has never imposed `any limitation on the length or nature of the sentence involved.'”
    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.