41 Ill. App. 3d 276 - People v. Behnke’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 172 W. Va. 360 - Thornton v. CAMC, ETC. (1983), 54 Ill. App. 3d 454 - People v. Taylor (1977)
28 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 509 (Justice Department Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Enhancement Act of 1988)
Relies on 33 Ill. 2d 326 - Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital · 50 Ill. 2d 196 - People v. Amerman · 63 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Mayberry · 64 Wash. 2d 431 - Dabroe v. Rhodes Co. · 107 Ill. App. 2d 248 - Atwood Vacuum MacHine Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To prevent cross-examination upon the relevant body of knowledge serves only to protect the ignorant or unscrupulous expert witness. In our opinion expert testimony will be a more effective tool in the attainment of justice if cross-examination is permitted as to the views of recognized authorities, expressed in treatises or periodicals written for professional colleagues. * * * The author’s competence is established if the judge takes judicial notice of it, or if it is established by a witness expert in the subject.” Darling, at 336.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In examining the circumstances attending the publication of treatises which would be regarded as a sufficient indication of their reliability, it has been stressed that such document are generally not written with a view to litigation or the interests of a litigable affair....”
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.