156 Ill. 2d 288 - McDunn v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 213 Ill. 2d 498 - People v. Jones (2004), 164 Ill. 2d 207 - Bazydlo v. Volant (1995)
82 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 142 Ill. 2d 54 - Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education · 139 Ill. 2d 24 - Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Commission · 99 Ill. 2d 481 - Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 · 135 Ill. 2d 540 - People v. Morris · 45 Ill. 2d 405 - Kazubowski v. Kazubowski
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[T]here must[,] *** in order to prevent fraud, be some method whereby illegally cast ballots may be distinguished and rejected. The initialing provision is the principal method chosen by the legislature for accomplishing this purpose since the judge who has indorsed his initials upon the ballot can thereafter identify that ballot as legally cast.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig, 39 Ill. 2d at 200-01 . “ ‘[T]he initials provide the only means by which the election officials can identify and separate the legally cast from the illegally cast in-precinct ballots.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 314 , quoting Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21, 53 (1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘The returns of the election officials are prima facie evidence of the result of the election. The ballots, however, are the original evidence of the votes cast. In an election contest, the court may accept the ballots cast at the election as better evidence of the result than the election returns if those ballots have been properly preserved.’ [Citations.]” McDunn v. Williams, 156 Ill. 2d at 321 , 620 N.E.2d at 402 , quoting Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21, 72 , 561 N.E.2d 585 (1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Statutes requiring initialling are not constitutionally suspect. Voters who cast a ballot in-precinct will not lose the right to vote without fault of their own because such voters could tell whether the election judges had initialled their ballots. Any voter at the precinct with an uninitialled ballot could ask the election judge to initial his ballot and thus ensure that his vote would be counted.” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 314 .”
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.