192 Ill. 2d 154 - People v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘When a case implicates a federal statute [or a state statute] enacted after the events in suit, the court’s first task is to determine whether Congress [or the General Assembly] has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. If Congress [or the General Assembly] has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern ***.’ ” See Ramsey, 192 Ill. 2d at 171-72 (Bilandic, J., specially concurring), quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280 , 128 L. Ed. 2d at 261-62 , 114 S. Ct. at 1505 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 194 Ill. 2d 493 - Johnson v. Halloran · 196 Ill. 2d 27 - Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector

2. “new legislation * * * is not claimed to suffer from the same single subject rule problems that rendered Public Act 89-404 invalid, and we must presume it to be constitutional.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 329 Ill. App. 3d 1104 - People v. Terry