Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 Ill. 2d 525 - People v. MacK

167 Ill. 2d 525 - People v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001), 193 Ill. 2d 306 - People v. Williams (2000)

3 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

3001995200020102020decided

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 · Batson v. Kentucky · Griffith v. Kentucky · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Evitts v. Lucey

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

  1. “(b) Aggravating Factors. A defendant who at the time of the commission of the offense has attained the age of 18 or more and who has been found guilty of murder may be sentenced to death if: * * * * * . the murdered individual was killed in the course of another felony if: (a) the murdered individual was actually killed by the defendant and not by another party to the crime or simply as a consequence of the crime; and (b) the defendant killed the murdered individual intentionally or with the knowledge that the acts which caused the death created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the murdered individual or another; and (c) the other felony was one of the following: armed robberyf.]”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"We, the jury, unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Timothy Buss is eligible for a death sentence under the law. We unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that: The defendant was 18 years old or older at the time of the murder for which he was convicted in this case; and The following statutory aggravating factor exists: The defendant has been convicted of murdering two or more persons. * * * We, the jury, unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Timothy Buss is eligible for a death sentence under the law. We unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that: The defendant was 18 years old or older at the time of the murder for which he was convicted in this case; and The following statutory aggravating factor exists: The murdered person was killed in the course of aggravated kidnaping."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is well established that a general verdict of ‘guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment’ or simply ‘guilty’ is sufficient to sustain a conviction [citation], as is a verdict identifying the offense by name [citation]. However, where the verdict purports to set out the elements of the offense as specific findings, it must do so completely or be held insufficient. [Citation.] *** [T]he verdict [in this case] attempted to set forth a statutory aggravating factor, but failed to do so completely and omitted an essential element.” Mack, 167 Ill. 2d at 538 .”
    3 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.