149 Ill. 2d 540 - People v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 227 Ill. 2d 322 - People v. Deleon (2008), 155 Ill. 2d 422 - People v. Peeples (1993)
77 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 Strickland v. Washington · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · McMillan v. Pennsylvania
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Such evidence *** should be presented by witnesses who can be confronted and cross-examined, rather than by hearsay allegations in the presentence report, and the defendant should have an opportunity to rebut the testimony. [Citations.]” Williams, 149 Ill. 2d at 548 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e see no reason why a sentencing judge may not consider, as one factor, the realities of the sentencing law in fashioning a sentence which is reflective of both the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s rehabilitative potential. A sentencing judge does not act in a vacuum, nor can he be expected to disregard the possibility of good-time credit which is inherent in every sentence of imprisonment. [Citation.] While we recognize that good-time credit and eligibility for good-time credit are not the same thing, we nevertheless believe that a sentencing court may properly determine the minimum amount of actual incarceration which is appropriate in light of the seriousness of the offense and the history and character of the defendant. *** It is well established that a sentencing court may search anywhere, within reasonable bounds, for facts which aid him in crafting a proper sentence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, our supreme court has not articulated a specific burden of proof at sentencing and instead maintains that `relevance and reliability are the important factors in the consideration of evidence at sentencing.'”
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.