← 21 Ill. App. 3d 977 - People v. Dickerson

21 Ill. App. 3d 977 - People v. Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

cited by 19 later decisions

states following

November 1987

most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 44 Ill. 2d 562 - The PEOPLE v. Marino · 44 Ill. 2d 407 - The PEOPLE v. Grieco · 113 Ill. App. 2d 276 - People v. Adams · 50 Ill. 2d 111 - People v. Baxa · 133 Ill. App. 2d 885 - People v. Hayes

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

““A person commits theft when he knowingly: * * * (d) Obtains control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another or under such circumstances as would reasonably induce him to believe that the property was stolen, and ***.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 162 Ill. App. 3d 684 - People v. Dabrowski · 61 Ill. 2d 580 - People v. Dickerson
“(1) That the indictment failed to charge an offense; (2) that the indictment was defective in that it failed to include an essential element of the offense of receiving stolen property, that is, that the defendant knew at the time he received the stolen property that it was stolen; (3) that reversible error was committed when the trial court allowed the State to examine State’s witnesses with respect to dealings with people other than the defendant relative to the stolen snowmobiles; (4) that the State failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 41 Ill. App. 3d 302 - People v. Deery
““Having elected to indict and prosecute defendant under subsection (d), basic justice requires that the State be bound to plead and prove the elements of that charge. We adhere to the majority opinion which found the indictment fatally defective for failing to include an element essential under section 16 — 1(d): i.e., that the property had been stolen by a person other than the one charged.” 21 Ill. App. 3d 977, 983 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 71 Ill. App. 3d 102 - People v. Beauchemin

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.