Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Ill. App. 3d 839 - People v. Gaines

21 Ill. App. 3d 839 - People v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 38 Ill. App. 3d 81 - People v. Perry (1976), 145 Ill. App. 3d 247 - People v. Wallace (1986)

25 state decisions

16019741980199020002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · United States v. Tucker · 41 Ill. 2d 297 - The People v. Adkins · 57 Ill. 2d 127 - People v. Ellis

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

  1. ““It is hard to see how a court * * * may look for the facts of the crime itself and may search anywhere within reasonable bounds for other facts which tend to aggravate or mitigate the offense and may inquire into the general moral character of the offender, his mentality, his habits, his social environment, his abnormal or subnormal tendencies, his age, his natural inclination or aversion to commit crime, the stimuli which motivate his conduct, and know something of his life, family, occupation and record, but must exclude from such search, look and inquiry any conduct which can be characterized as criminal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ° ° ° the mere fact that a trial judge, before imposing sentence, is aware of certain inadmissible facts does not automatically insure a reversal of that sentence. The function of a reviewing court is not to determine whether the record is perfect, but to determine whether defendant had a fair trial. Where it can be said from the record that an error complained of could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.””
    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.