41 Ill. App. 3d 215 - People v. Meints’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 108 Ill. App. 3d 1015 - People v. DeSimone (1982), 137 Ill. App. 3d 645 - People v. Paino (1985)
27 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 Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club · 53 Ill. 2d 460 - People v. Jones · People v. Prante · 53 Ill. 2d 79 - People v. Hanson · 18 Ill. App. 3d 1049 - People v. Brown
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We do not believe the English language to be so rigorously well defined that the words ‘harm’ and ‘battered’ cannot be used synonymously. Our analysis of the legislative intent is that recognition and concern was being extended [by section 12 — 4(b)] to people on or about a public way or persons in positions of authority, whether they be police, correctional officers, school teachers or firemen. The legislation which was the product of that intent constituted an effort by the legislature to shield those persons from harassment and interference. The legislation placed these people, because of their public duties and functions, into a protected category and subjected violators of their persons to a much greater sanction than that established for a simple battery committed upon persons not in the protected group.” 41 Ill. App. 3d 215, 219-20 , 355 N.E.2d 125, 128-29 ; see also People v. Paez (2d Dist. 1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 349 , 359 N.E.2d 1083 ; People v. Claudio (1st Dist. 1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 537 , 300 N.E.2d 791 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““To sustain the charge of aggravated battery, the State must prove the following propositions: First: That the defendant knowingly or intentionally made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Harold Allen: and Second: That the defendant knew Harold Allen to be a correctional officer engaged in the execution of an official duty X* « Xt ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Jones““The court shall not impose a consecutive sentence unless, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, it is of the opinion that such a term is required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant, the basis for which the court may set forth in the record.””
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.