52 Ill. 2d 570 - Stein v. Howlett’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 202 Ill. 2d 89 - People v. Boclair (2002), 153 Ill. 2d 473 - People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. E & E HAULING, INC. (1992)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 United States v. O'Brien · Connally v. General Construction Co. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Zemel v. Rusk · Bates v. City of Little Rock
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §6.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff questions how the disclosure of a business connection, unrelated to any activity of the State serves to avoid the conflicts of interest hoped to be disclosed and obviated by the statute. We acknowledge that the disclosure of a business connection which is truly unrelated to any State activity cannot help to achieve the desired purpose. But who is to say whether or not there is a business connection or relation with the State? Who is to say that the business within the State which does not do business directly with the State, but which supplies another company which does, has no connection with the State? Who is to say that a capital gain from the sale of an asset to a stockholder of a company doing business with the State has no connection with the position of a public official?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(1) makes criminal and punishable an act innocent when done; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed; (3) increases the punishment for a crime and applies the increase to crimes committed before the enactment of the law; and (4) alters legal rules of evidence so that testimony insufficient to convict of the offense when committed would be sufficient as to that particular offense and the accused person.” (Stein v. Howlett (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 570, 584 , 289 N.E.2d 409 , citing Calder v. Bull (1798), 3 U.S. 386 , 1 L. Ed. 648 .)”
2 later decisions 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.