69 Ill. 2d 402 - Hoffmann v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 114 Ill. 2d 252 - People Ex Rel. Skinner v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. (1986), 81 Ill. 2d 260 - O'Connor v. a & P Enterprises (1980)
69 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 Arnett v. Kennedy · 60 Ill. 2d 350 - Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin · 56 Ill. 2d 101 - Clarendon Associates v. Korzen · 57 Ill. 2d 318 - La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook · 43 Ill. 2d 36 - Thorpe v. Mahin
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Except as otherwise provided in this Section, taxes upon real property shall be levied uniformly by valuation ascertained as the General Assembly shall provide by law.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, sec. 4(a)).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Subject to such limitations as the General Assembly may hereafter prescribe by law, counties with a population of more than 200,000 may classify or continue to classify real property for purposes of taxation. ***. The level of assessment or rate of tax of the highest class in a county shall not exceed two and one-half times the level of assessment or rate of tax of the lowest class in that county.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““In discussing the nature of the power of the General Assembly under the revenue article, this committee [Committee on Revenue and Finance, Constitutional Convention, 1970] explained that it ‘vests the power to raise revenue in the General Assembly except to the extent that the constitution grants such power to local governments or otherwise limits the legislature’s authority.’ (7 Proceedings 2062.) And further the committee stated: ‘Indeed, the inherent power of government to tax is so well established that it would undoubtedly be held to exist even in the absence of any constitutional provision authorizing it. *** As a result, any attempt to grant a specific taxing power in a state constitution becomes, in effect, a limitation on the inherent power. The Committee does intend to place limits upon the General Assembly in its exercise of the tax power, but those limits are expressly stated and they are exclusive. The Committee believes that it is very important to avoid the narrow and often unintended limitations which resulted from court interpretations of the existing constitutional provisions and which might again result if we were to attempt to spell out affirmatively and in detail the state’s taxing powers. The proposed wording achieves this objective by affirming the sovereign power of the state and the General Assembly in Section 1 and then, in later sections, setting forth the specific restrictions which are intended to circumscribe the scope of the taxing power. Secti”
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.