35 Ill. App. 3d 342 - People v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably 91 Ill. 2d 536 - People v. Huckstead (1982), 80 Ill. App. 3d 552 - People v. Massarella (1979)
48 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 24 Ill. 2d 586 - The People v. Solomon · 28 Ill. 2d 396 - The PEOPLE v. Mason · 1 Ill. 2d 562 - People v. Holtzman · 36 Ill. 2d 483 - The People v. Taylor · 11 Ill. App. 3d 973 - People v. Meeks
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If an accused wishes certain instructions to be given, he should offer them and request the court to give them, since the trial court is under no duty to give instructions on its own motion. (People v. Meeks, 11 Ill. App. 3d 973 .) It has long been held that the jury is properly instructed if the series of instructions, construed as a whole, fully and properly informs the jury of the law applicable to the case. (People v. Turner 82 Ill. App. 2d 10 .) In the instant set of instructions, the jury was given IPI 7.02 (burden of proof of murder, without mention of self-defense), 24.06 (justifiable use of force); and IPI 2.03 (presumption of innocence, including the State’s burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant not being required to prove his innocence). This series construed together sufficiently informed the jury of the law applicable to the defendant’s theory of defense, self-defense, and of the State’s burden of proof. Had the defendant tendered IPI 25.05 the court would have been under a duty to give the instruction. In the absence of such a request, however, the instruction which the court did give provided an adequate guide for the jury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * when there is a substantial spread between the minimum and the maximum of a sentence the inmate in the institution can be directed toward academic or vocational training, and favorable prospective parole consideration operates as quite a catalyst. The existence of a substantial spread between the minimum and the maximum ensures the availability to the defendant of supervision after incarceration. The principle of indeterminacy of sentence necessarily leaves to the professionals in the behavioral sciences the determination of the optimum date for release. The court, in fixing the maximum, determines the total length of possible incarceration.” 253 N.E.2d at 555-556 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duffy v. State
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.