55 Ill. 2d 142 - People v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 94 Ill. 2d 303 - People v. Tiller (1982), 57 Ill. 2d 493 - People v. Kessler (1974)
78 state decisions
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 10 Ill. 2d 74 - The PEOPLE v. Halteman · 31 Ill. 2d 375 - The People v. Hartgraves · 51 Ill. 2d 156 - People v. Brooks · Lowe v. United States · 49 Ill. 2d 78 - The PEOPLE v. Glover
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when: # # O (b) The statute defining the offense makes him so accountable; or (c) Either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 5 — 2.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(c) Either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense. However, a person is not so accountable, unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise, if: ft ft * (3) Before the commission of the offense, he terminates his effort to promote or facilitate such commission, and does one of the following: wholly deprives his prior efforts of effectiveness in such commission, or gives timely warning to the proper law enforcement authorities, or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 5 — 2(c).)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule is that the latitude to be allowed in cross-examination of witnesses rests in the discretion of the trial court. This court long ago stated that in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion, a reviewing court will not find reversible error where cross-examination might have been unduly restricted unless there was a clear abuse of this discretion, resulting in manifest prejudice.” (People v. Hubbard (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 142, 150-51 , 302 N.E.2d 609, 613 .)”
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.