91 Ill. 2d 536 - People v. Huckstead’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 367 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 383 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 215 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Herron (2005), 128 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Young (1989)
4 federal appellate · 367 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 Henderson v. Kibbe · Guzman v. United States · 75 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Roberts · 76 Ill. 2d 365 - People v. Foster · 82 Ill. 2d 546 - People v. Lockett
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 383 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To sustain the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault, as charged in Count I, the State must prove the following propositions. First: That the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration upon [C.B.] in that the defendant placed his penis in the vagina of [C.B.]; and Second: That the defendant was 17 years of age or older and that [C.B.] was under 13 years of age when the act was committed. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.” "To sustain the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault, as charged in Count II, the State must prove the following propositions: First: That the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration upon [C.B.] in that the defendant placed his penis in the mouth of [C.B.]; and Second: That the defendant was 17 years of age or older and that [C.B.] was under 13 years of age when the act was committed. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not gu”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The [plain error] exception is restricted to the correction of ‘grave errors’ [citations] or to situations where the case is close factually and fundamental fairness requires that the jury be properly instructed. [Citations.] * * * We believe in this case, the instructions, in combination with the closing arguments by counsel for both sides, apprised the jury that the State had the burden of proving that defendant was not justified in the force he used. Consequently, the failure of the trial court to give IPI Criminal No. 25.05 did not constitute ‘grave error.’ ” 91 Ill. 2d 536, 544-45 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To sustain the charge of criminal trespass to real property, the State must prove the following propositions: First: that the defendant entered a building; AND, Second: that the defendant, prior to the entry, received notice from the occupant of said building that such entry was forbidden.””
3 later decisions 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.