176 Ill. 2d 372 - People v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably 207 Ill. 2d 231 - People v. Lampitok (2003), State v. Muhammad (2002)
45 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 153 Ill. 2d 195 - People v. Lowe · 62 Ill. 2d 323 - People v. Breen · In re G. B. · 81 Ill. App. 3d 560 - People v. Hubble · 158 Ill. App. 3d 664 - People v. Cozad
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in addition to other reasonable conditions relating to the nature of the offense or the rehabilitation of the defendant as determined for each defendant in the proper discretion of the [cjourt.” 730 ILCS 5/5—6—3(b) (West Supp. 1995). In particular, section 5—6— 3(b)(15) of the Code provides that the trial court may require that the defendant”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘We hold that section 5-6-3(b) of the Code did not authorize the trial court to require the sign as a condition of the defendant’s probation. The sign contains a strong element of public humiliation or ridicule because it serves as a formal, public announcement of the defendant’s crime. Thus, the sign is inconsistent with the conditions of probation listed in section 5-6-3(b), none of which identify public notification or humiliation as a permissible condition. Further, we determine that the sign may have unpredictable or unintended consequences which may be inconsistent with the rehabilitative purpose of probation.” 176 Ill. 2d at 382 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The judicially developed condition in the case at bar does not reflect present penological policies of this state as evidenced by our Unified Code of Corrections. The authority to define and fix punishment is a matter for the legislature. [Citation omitted.] The drastic departure from traditional sentencing concepts utilized in tlris case is not contemplated by our Code. Therefore, we determine that the erection of the sign as a condition of probation was unreasonable, and may be counterproductive to defendant’s rehabilitative potential.” 176 Ill. 2d at 383 .”
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.