162 Ill. 2d 282 - People v. Jameson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 216 Ill. 2d 100 - Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2005), 176 Ill. 2d 1 - Advincula v. United Blood Services (1996)
114 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 Oyler v. Boles · 109 Ill. 2d 514 - People v. King · 149 Ill. 2d 467 - People v. Williams · 154 Ill. 2d 193 - People Ex Rel. Baker v. Cowlin · 157 Ill. 2d 138 - People v. Levin
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the State seeks an enhanced sentence because of a prior conviction, the charge shall also state the intention to seek an enhanced sentence and shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice to the defendant. *** For the purposes of this Section, `enhanced sentence' means a sentence which is increased by a prior conviction from one classification of offense to another higher level classification of offense set forth in Section 5-5-1 of the `Unified Code of Corrections' ***; it does not include an increase in the sentence applied within the same level of classification of offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“legislature enacted section 111-3(c) to ensure that a defendant received notice, before trial, of the offense with which he is charged. * * * There is no evidence that the legislature intended to require the State to give a defendant pretrial notice of the possible sentence * * * that he might receive.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"When the language of section 111 3(c) is considered in light of the legislative history of that statute, it is evident that the legislature intended that statute to reach those instances in which a prior conviction elevates the classification of the offense with which a defendant is charged and convicted, rather than simply the sentence imposed. The legislature did not intend to require the State to give defendants pretrial notice that they would be sentenced as Class X offenders pursuant to section 5-5-3." (Emphasis in original.) Jameson, 162 Ill.2d at 288 , 205 Ill.Dec. 90 , 642 N.E.2d 1207 .”
2 later decisions 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.