56 Ill. 2d 257 - People v. Sprinkle’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 289 - People v. Taylor (1979), 88 Ill. 2d 129 - People v. Lewis (1981)
3 federal appellate · 99 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 Kent v. United States · 33 Ill. 2d 417 - The People v. Taylor · Alexander v. Virginia · 44 Ill. 2d 41 - The People v. Hampton · 51 Ill. 2d 17 - People v. Bombacino
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well-established law in Illinois that where it is claimed that the sentence imposed upon a defendant is excessive, though within the limits prescribed by the legislature in the Criminal Code, ‘that sentence should not be disturbed unless it is greatly at variance with the purpose and spirit of the law or manifestly in excess of the proscriptions of section 11 of article II of the Illinois constitution [1870].’ People v. Hampton (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 41, 48 . The trial court is normally in a better position during the trial and hearing in aggravation and mitigation to make a sound determination as to the punishment to be imposed than are courts of review. People v. Hampton (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 41 . See also People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 417, 424 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If a petition alleges commission by a minor 13 years of age or over of an act which constitutes a crime under the laws of this State, the minor, with the consent of his counsel, may, at any time before commencement of the adjudicatory hearing, file with the court a motion that criminal prosecution be ordered and that the petition be dismissed insofar as the act or acts involved in the criminal proceedings are concerned. If such a motion is filed as herein provided, the court shall enter its order accordingly.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 702 — 7(5).)”
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.