Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 Ill. App. 3d 437 - People v. Mosley

63 Ill. App. 3d 437 - People v. Mosley’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2020

13 state decisions

70197819801990200020102020decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. White · Lopez v. United States · Costello v. United States · 34 Ill. 2d 387 - The People v. Kurth

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Criminal investigations are the province of law enforcement agencies, and it is those agencies which will ordinarily be possessed of the information that will indicate the efficacy of eavesdropping. Consequently, the State’s Attorney will in most instances be acting upon recommendations from such agencies. We can only believe that the legislature merely' intended that eavesdropping be conducted with the authorization or approval of the State’s Attorney. Any other interpretation would be senseless and ignore the practical realities of criminal investigations.” ( 63 Ill. App. 3d 437, 443-44 .)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ [Citation.]” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 9 L. Ed. 2d at 455 , 83 S. Ct. at 417 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"A person commits eavesdropping when he: (a) uses an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of any conversation unless he does so with the consent of any one party to such conversation and at the request of a State's Attorney; * * *." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 14-2(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.