331 Ill. App. 3d 984 - People v. Pinkonsly’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 66 Ill. 2d 551 - People v. King · 153 Ill. 2d 264 - People v. Flores · 163 Ill. 2d 93 - People v. Novak · 128 Ill. 2d 448 - People v. Bryant · 184 Ill. 2d 58 - People v. McLaurin
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The narcotics racketeering count contained an allegation that defendant participated in a pattern of narcotics activity. That allegation necessarily implied that defendant committed two Class 2, 1, or X felonies under the Cannabis Control Act [citation] or the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Counts I and II alleged that defendant committed two Class X felonies under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Accordingly, the statutory elements of narcotics racketeering were implicitly contained in the unlawful-delivery-of-cocaine counts, a fact that renders the unlawful-delivery-of-cocaine counts lesser-included offenses. See People v. Callaway, 185 Ill.App.3d 136 [ 133 Ill.Dec. 287 , 540 N.E.2d 1153 ] (1989)." 331 Ill.App.3d at 988 , 265 Ill.Dec. 484 , 772 N.E.2d 855 . [1]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The General Assembly has chosen to make the delivery of between 15 and 100 grams of cocaine a Class X felony, while it has made the later-enacted narcotics racketeering a Class 1 felony. This scheme is indicative of the legislature's intent to make large-scale drug delivery a more serious offense than the receipt of income from multiple, smaller drug offenses, rather than a lesser-included offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Appellate Court, Fifth District, vacated a Class X possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver, stating that it was a lesser-included offense of narcotics racketeering.”
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.