People v. Hopp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “[I]t would seem utterly meaningless to instruct a jury on attempt to commit a ‘specific offense’ without defining the specific offense alleged to have been committed. Such procedure would leave the jury entirely to its own devices in determining what specific offense the court was referring to in its definition of attempt as well as in determining whether the defendant had taken a substantial step toward its commission.” ’ ” (Emphasis in original.) 336 Ill. App. 3d at 528-29 , quoting People v. Carey, 94 Ill. App. 3d 631, 636 , (1981), quoting People v. Koshiol, 45 Ill. 2d 573, 579 (1970).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 209 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Hopp

2. ““[I]t is a substantial and prejudicial defect in the trial and, therefore, reversible error to fail to give the mandatory definitional murder instruction in a case alleging conspiracy to commit first degree murder. As we have previously indicated, it is the responsibility of the parties to submit the necessary instructions, but we hold that in the case of a mandatory instruction, the trial court should submit it sua sponte if the parties fail in that responsibility. Not to do so is, we believe, plain error.” Hopp, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 529 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 343 Ill. App. 3d 1168 - People v. Edwards