People v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendant argues that section 16 [of the Real Estate Brokers Act] and the above mentioned sections of the Criminal Code ‘relate to the same general subject matter’ and contends that where the legislature treats a subject ‘in a minute and definite way,’ the special law, section 16 of the Real Estate Brokers Act in this case, shall take effect over the more general law. ‘Accordingly,’ the defendant contends, he ‘was not amenable to prosecution under the general theft statute.’ Special legislation, he says, must take precedence or the will of the legislature will be circumvented. The defendant’s arguments do not persuade. The basic error is that he proceeds on the assumption that section 16 of the Real Estate Brokers Act proscribes the same conduct as is proscribed by sections 8 — 2, 16 — 1(a)(1) and 16 — 1(b)(1) of the Criminal Code. Manifestly this is not so. Section 16 is violated if a broker fails to account or remit or commingles property of his principal with his own, regardless of his intention or mental state in doing so. The section makes a real estate broker strictly liable for his actions in dealing with property of his client. If he does not remit or account or if he commingles his and his client’s funds he is, without more, guilty of a misdemeanor. The proof required for a conviction under sections 8 — 2, 16— 1(a)(1) and 16 — 1(b)(1) is far different. 999 It is clear that when a defendant’s act has been in violation of more than one statute, and each statute re”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Henderson

2. ““Any person *** failing to account for or to remit for any moneys coming into his *** possession which belong to others or commingling the money or other property of his *** principal with his *** own, is guilty of a misdemeanor ***.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 64 Ill. 2d 166 - People v. Gordon