Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 Ill. App. 3d 738 - People v. Davis

3 Ill. App. 3d 738 - People v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
6
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Tixier (1976), 83 Ill. App. 3d 732 - People v. Palmer (1980)

24 state decisions

70197219801990200020102020decided

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 100 Ill. App. 2d 81 - People v. Roldan · 28 Ill. 2d 433 - The People v. Songer · 84 Ill. App. 2d 442 - People v. Borden · 220 So. 2d 406 - Foster v. State

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. “c. Use of Instrument, Explosives, or Torch In order to constitute burglary, it is not necessary that entry be made by any part of the body; it may be by an instrument, as in a case where a hook or other instrument is put in with intent to take out goods.... It is necessary, however, that the instrument shall be put within the structure, and that it shall be inserted for the immediate purpose of committing the felony or aiding in its commission, and not merely for the purpose of making an opening to admit the hand or body, or, in other words, for the sole purpose of breaking.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"One could hardly argue that it would not be burglary for a person to break a very small hole in a jeweler’s window through which he inserted his hand, or his fingers or a small hook or other instrument and thereby removed or attempted to remove a piece of jewelry. It is not the size of the hole that is determinative but rather, in our opinion, it is whether a hand or instrument was actually inserted into the hole for the purpose of committing the felony.” (Davis, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 739 , 279 N.E.2d at 179 .)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters * * * [a] motor vehicle * * * or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.”
    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.