Doyle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2026
20 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 42 Ill. 2d 446 - The People v. Fries · State v. Jefferson · Jack Lincoln Shops, Inc. v. State Dry Cleaners' Board · Black v. State · Jackson v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under its general police power, the legislature is vested with the authority to define those acts or omissions which constitute a criminal offense and to prescribe the punishment therefor. Lambert v. State, Okl.Cr., 374 P.2d 783 . Generally in construing the reasonableness of legislation as applicable to the legislative exercise of police power, the presumption is in favor of the reasonableness and validity of the law. The courts in passing upon statutes enacted under authority of police powers must disregard all matters that relate to the wisdom or policy of the act, and may declare an act void only when it clearly appears that it bears no real or substantial relation to the police power, or the means adopted for effecting the object are manifestly unreasonable. Further, the measure of reasonableness of a police power regulation is what is fairly appropriate to its purpose under all circumstances and not necessarily what is best. Hud Oil and Refining Company v. City of Oklahoma City, 167 Okl. 457 , 30 P.2d 169 ; Shops v. State Dry Cleaners’ Board et al., 192 Okl. 251 , 135 P.2d 332 . When the exercise of the police power bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate purpose, the courts may not interfere. People v. Fries, 42 Ill.2d 446 , 250 N.E.2d 149 .” Doyle v. State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1133, 1137 (1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnston“Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, [drugs and other substances listed under Schedule II include] any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system: ... Methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Troughton““Clearly by the statutory language stating ‘which contains any quantity of the following substances’ the legislature classified amphetamine as a controlled dangerous substance in any quantity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whitehorn 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.