175 Ill. 2d 126 - People v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
171 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 219 Ill. 2d 353 - People v. Kolton (2006), 194 Ill. 2d 502 - People v. Kirchner (2000)
171 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 72 Ill. 2d 16 - People v. Harris · 62 Ill. 2d 568 - People v. Viser · 145 Ill. 2d 188 - People v. Schott · 68 Ill. 2d 198 - People v. Trinkle · 99 Ill. 2d 427 - People v. Terrell
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"After careful consideration, we agree with the appellate court that this act of exposure, when added to the request for sexual conduct, was sufficient to constitute a substantial step notwithstanding the lack of any actual contact between defendant and the victim. [ People v. Jones , ] 276 Ill. App.3d [1006] at 1008-09 [ 213 Ill.Dec. 499 , 659 N.E.2d 415 (1995)], citing People v. Brewer, 118 Ill.App.3d 189 [ 73 Ill.Dec. 774 , 454 N.E.2d 1023 ] (1983). We therefore believe the evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt * * *." 175 Ill.2d at 134 , 221 Ill.Dec. 843 , 676 N.E.2d 646 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“performed a substantial step toward the commission of that offense, in that he disrobed in the presence of [D.R.], who was at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age at the time, stimulated his [own] penis to erection and requested the said [D.R.] to masturbate him to orgasm, for the purpose of the sexual gratification of the defendant; and said defendant was at least 5 years older than [D.R.].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.