62 Ill. 2d 350 - People v. Nicks’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 79 Ill. 2d 410 - People v. Bradley (1980), 36 Ill. App. 3d 355 - People v. Henderson (1976)
42 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 60 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Williams · 53 Ill. 2d 585 - People v. Harvey · 53 Ill. 2d 572 - People v. Chupich · 59 Ill. 2d 276 - People v. Morgan · 57 Ill. 2d 67 - People Ex Rel. Weaver v. Longo
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(e) In determining the manner in which consecutive sentences of imprisonment, one or more of which is for a felony, will be served, the Department of Corrections shall treat the offender as though he had been committed for a single term with the following incidents: * * * (4) the offender shall be awarded credit against the aggregate maximum term and the aggregate minimum term of imprisonment for all time served in an institution since the commission of the offense or offenses and as a consequence thereof at the rate specified in Section 3 — 6—3 of this Code.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4(e)(4).)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 8 — 2—4 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1008 — 2—4) required that, if the criminal prosecution had not reached ‘a final adjudication,’ the sentences under the Code would apply if they were less than under prior law. In People v. Chupich, 53 Ill. 2d 572 , we interpreted the term ‘final adjudication,’ as used in the Controlled Substances Act, to include that period until the criminal case is decided by the last direct appeal. And in People v. Harvey, 53 Ill. 2d 585 , we applied this construction to require reduction of the minimum sentences therein imposed to conform to the requirement specified in the Unified Code of Corrections. The impact of Chupich and Harvey was to require the resentencing of a defendant who was sentenced under prior law if the initial sentence was less favorable than that established by the Unified Code of Corrections and a direct appeal of his conviction was pending at the time that the Code became effective.” ( 62 Ill. 2d 350, 353-54 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under subparagraph (e), the Department of Corrections must consider the consecutive sentences as one sentence with an aggregate maximum and minimum for purposes of parole and good time. The application of subparagraph (e) is made to all persons presently serving consecutive sentences. Under this section the Department can simplify its administration of sentences for purposes of parole eligibility and parole. This should also aid the offender to concentrate his rehabilitative efforts on a single longer sentence instead of having to view each sentence as a separate hurdle to clear before going on to the next. This abolishes the fiction of ‘institutional parole’ under which a person served 6 months’ parole in the penitentiary between consecutive indeterminate sentences.” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—4, Council Commentary, at 164 (Smith-Hurd 1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cornes v. Groves
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.