52 Ill. App. 3d 407 - People v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 98 Ill. 2d 418 - People v. Lampkin · 43 Ill. App. 3d 677 - People v. Houston · 33 Ill. App. 3d 762 - People v. Housby · 128 Ill. App. 2d 305 - People v. Sangster · 98 Ill. App. 2d 435 - People v. Morgan
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In reshaping the cluster of statutes formerly dealing with prostitution, some arbitrary distinctions in terminology were made. ‘Pander’, ‘procure’, and ‘pimp’ are three commonly used terms which have been employed to describe various types of activities connected with prostitution. An effort has been made here to use only one term to describe one general kind of function. Thus, pander has been used to denominate the activities of one who recruits prostitutes; pimp has been used as the label for one who lives off the earning of the prostitute; procure is not used at all. So far as dictionary accuracy goes, the use of the words could be reversed. The distinctions were made here to provide convenient references by giving a more specific functional meaning to the terms. Comparisons with statutory provisions of other states becomes unprofitable too, since there is no consistent pattern that is of much assistance. Section 11 — 16 describes the activity here labeled ‘pandering,’ which involves the recruiting of persons into the practice of prostitution and with keeping practicing prostitutes in that line of endeavor. This functional classification then makes a distinction between the ‘recruiter-business manager’ and the runner or contact man (dealt with under the preceding section) [Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 11—15 (soliciting for a prostitute)] and the individual who is the prostitute’s consort — the pimp. Formerly, there were two principal statutes in the Illinois Crimina”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any person who performs any of the following acts for money commits pandering: (1) Compels a female to become a prostitute; or (2) Arranges or offers to arrange a situation in which a female may practice prostitution.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 11 — 16(a).)”
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.