Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 Ill. App. 2d 159 - People v. Burke

52 Ill. App. 2d 159 - People v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
5
states following
January 1991
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 1991

19 state decisions

1301964197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. ““We agree with the defendant that the testimony was prejudicial____ However, the fact that the evidence was prejudicial does not mean that it was erroneously admitted ____ “The cross-examination of Diane had established that she hated her father prior to the incident in question. This fact, standing alone and unexplained, could furnish the basis for a powerful argument that Diane could be motivated by this ill-feeling to invent the charge against her father. The State was clearly entitled to bring out the reason for her attitude toward her father, provided the reason had a legitimate tendency to lessen the impeaching effect of her admitted bias and was not a mere excuse to load the record with extraneous matter to the prejudice of the defendant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.