319 Ill. App. 3d 102 - People v. Dillard’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 91 Cal. App. 4th 212 - People v. Thomas (2001), 327 Ill. App. 3d 816 - People v. Brown (2002)
46 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Jones v. United States · Hutto v. Davis · Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd.
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.
““Although the Apprendi Court stated that ‘it is arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided,’ the Court was clear that it was not overruling its prior decision. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489 , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2362 . We agree with the court in People v. Roberts, 318 Ill. App. 3d 719, 728-29 [, 743 N.E.2d 1025, 1033 ] (2000), which found the following language from a case in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be on point: ‘ “[D] espite the [Apprendi] Court’s reservations about its continuing validity, the Court chose not to overrule AlmendarezTorres. ‘Needless to say, only [the Supreme Court] may overrule one of its precedents. Until that occurs, [Almendarez-Torres] is the law.’ Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 , 103 S. Ct. 1343 , 75 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1983) (per curiam); see also Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 , 102 S. Ct. 703 , 70 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (‘But unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.’). Since Almendarez-Torres was plainly addressed, but not overruled by the Supreme Court in Apprendi, the court is obligated to apply it in this case.” United States v. Powell, 109 F. Supp. 2d 381, 383 (E.D. Pa. 2000).’ Because Almendarez-Torres is still good law, we reject defendant’s assertion that Apprendi renders unc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]s Jones made crystal clear, 526 U.S. at 248-249, [ 119 S. Ct. 1215 ,] our conclusion in Almendarez-Torres turned heavily upon the fact that the additional sentence to which the defendant was subject was ‘the prior commission of a serious crime.’ 523 U.S. at 230 [, 118 S. Ct. at 1219 ]; see also id., at 243 [, 118 S. Ct. at 1219 ] (explaining that ‘recidivism ... is a traditional, if not the most traditional, basis for a sentencing court’s increasing an offender’s sentence’); id., at 244 [, 118 S. Ct. 1219 ] (emphasizing ‘the fact that recidivism “does not relate to the commission of the offense ...” ’); Jones, 526 U.S. at 249-250, n.10 [, 119 S. Ct. 1215 ] (‘The majority and the dissenters in Almendarez-Torres disagreed over the legitimacy of the Court’s decision to restrict its holding to recidivism, but both sides agreed that the Court had done just that’).” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488 , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 454 , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A jury therefore need not accept a defendant's Claim of self-defense.”
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.