54 Ill. App. 2d 51 - Smith v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 68 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e would not want our decision in this case to be interpreted as a holding that every conviction following a plea of not guilty is admissible in evidence in a later case involving the facts upon which the conviction is based. *** For example, our holding in this case would not be authority for the admissibility of a traffic court conviction in a later civil case arising out of a traffic accident. Defendants in traffic cases are frequently unrepresented by counsel, and the proceedings are relatively informal. In view of the comparatively modest penalty a defendant faces on a judgment of conviction, the charge is rarely contested with the vigor that characterizes the adversary system at its best.” (Smith v. Andrews (1964), 54 Ill. App. 2d 51, 62 , 203 N.E.2d 160, 165-66 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 Ill. App. 3d 779 - Nunley v. Mares · 235 Ill. App. 3d 281 - Thurmond v. Monroe

2. ““The evidence of this admission would be sufficient, especially when uncontradicted, to support the finding that the defendant had in fact committed a robbery.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sikora v. Sikora

3. “We think the trial court could properly find that one convicted of that crime is inherently deficient in moral sense and rectitude.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 80 Ill. App. 3d 1144 - In Re Abdullah