52 Ill. 2d 147 - People v. Keegan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant argues that the statute gives unguided discretion to a grand jury or a magistrate to determine whether a defendant should be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. As demonstrated by the sections above enumerated there are a number of statutes which provide for penalties applicable to felonies and alternatively for penalties applicable to misdemeanors. We have previously held that if the conduct for which a defendant is prosecuted constitutes a misdemean- or under one statute and a felony under another, there is no error in convicting him of the felony. (People v. Singer, 288 Ill. 113 .) With respect to the discretion to be exercised in determining under which statute the defendant is to be prosecuted, in People v. Rhodes, 38 Ill.2d 389 , at page 396 we said: ‘The State’s Attorney is the representative of the People and has the responsibility of evaluating the evidence and other pertinent factors and determining what offense can properly and should properly be charged.’ We hold, therefore, that in being charged under section 11—4, although the same conduct could have been the basis of a conviction under section 11—5, the defendant was not denied equal protection of the law.” 52 Ill.2d at 153 ; see also People v. Parks (1971), 48 Ill.2d 232 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Ill. 2d 440 - People v. McCollough

2. ““* * * victimizing the child’s immaturity, knowingly and deliberately. One who engages in a sexual act with another, believing honestly and reasonably that such other was of sufficient age to exercise discretion and mature judgment in the matter, may have overstepped the boundaries of acceptable conduct, but such an offender has not exhibited a dangerous propensity to victimize the immature.” (Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38, § 11 — 4, Committee Comments (Smith-Hurd 1972).)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Ill. App. 3d 553 - People v. Plewka

3. ““Any person of the age of 14 years and upwards who performs or submits to any of the following acts with any person under the age of eighteen, contributes to the sexual delinquency of a child: * * * (3) Any lewd fondling or touching of either the child or the person done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person or both; * * *"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 47 Ill. App. 3d 637 - People v. Keesee