5 Ill. 2d 384 - People v. Vraniak’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 147 Ill. 2d 326 - People v. Frieberg (1992), 79 Ill. 2d 410 - People v. Bradley (1980)
7 federal appellate · 66 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 McCutcheon v. People · Johnson v. People · People v. Ferguson · The People v. Nicholson · State v. Mahaney
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As used in its ordinary sense, the word 'or' marks an alternative indicating the various members of the sentence which it connects are to be taken separately.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intent was not a material element of the crime and need not have been alleged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By the statute under which defendant was charged, the legislature saw fit to provide punishment for the person aiding an escape, but not the one aided. When it is considered that the danger of escape is considerably increased by outside intervention or internal collusion by persons ■other than the prisoner, thus rendering inadequate protective measures which would otherwise be sufficient, we think it only natural and reasonable that the legislature made the classification it did in seeking to combat the increased dangers of escape. There being a substantial rather than a fancied difference between the policy to be subserved in punishing those aiding an escape, as distinguished from those who were aided, we must conclude that the classification is neither arbitrary, discriminatory nor unreasonable.””
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.