147 Ill. App. 3d 249 - People v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2015
21 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 Ohio v. Roberts · 104 Ill. 2d 375 - People v. Lambert · 47 Ill. 2d 501 - The PEOPLE v. Heard · 127 Ill. App. 3d 365 - People v. Washington · 48 Ill. 2d 446 - The PEOPLE v. Abrams
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any intentional or knowing touching or fondling by the victim or the accused, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus or breast of the victim or the accused, or any part of the body of a child under 13 years of age, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the victim or the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“he, a person 17 years of age or over, committed an act of sexual conduct, to wit: sexual intercourse with [O.S.], a person under 13 years of age, in violation of chapter 38, section 12-16C(1) [12-16(c)(1)] of the Illinois Revised Statutes 1983 as amended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is sufficient to allege an offense in the language of the statute if the words so far particularize the offense that by their use alone an accused is informed with reasonable certainty of the precise offense with which he is charged.”
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.