41 Ill. App. 3d 178 - People v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
21 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 62 Ill. 2d 448 - People v. McDonald · 63 Ill. 2d 296 - People v. Akis · 40 Ill. 2d 109 - The People v. Stoval · 93 Ill. App. 2d 404 - People v. Ramirez · 35 Ill. 2d 552 - The PEOPLE v. McCasle
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he purpose of the inference mentioned in the instruction is not to prove the ‘force’ element of robbery, but rather that the defendant was one of the persons involved in the armed robbery described by the witnesses. (People v. Curtis (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 520, 524-25 , 288 N.E.2d 35 .) The instruction as to possession of stolen property must be read with all other instructions given to the jury. (People v. Finch (1946), 394 Ill. 183, 191 , 68 N.E.2d 283 .) These instructions adequately informed the jury of the elements of armed robbery. It is, therefore, not error for a jury to receive an IPI Criminal No. 13.21 instruction in an armed robbery case. People v. Flowers (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 406, 411 , 152 N.E.2d 838 ; People v. Powloski (1924), 311 Ill. 284, 289-290 , 142 N.E. 551 ; People v. Curtis (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 520, 524-525 , 288 N.E.2d 35 .” 41 Ill. App. 3d 178, 181 , 353 N.E.2d 177, 180 .”
3 later decisions 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.