96 Ill. 2d 327 - People v. Bourke’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
203 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 207 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 172 Ill. 2d 484 - People v. Gilliam (1996), 98 Ill. 2d 45 - People v. Payne (1983)
203 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 84 Ill. 2d 400 - People v. Conover · 98 Ill. App. 3d 914 - People v. Devine · 105 Ill. App. 3d 103 - People v. Gardner · 101 Ill. App. 3d 238 - People v. Hicks · 108 Ill. App. 3d 1015 - People v. DeSimone
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 207 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[R]eliance on an improper factor in aggravation does not always necessitate remandment for resentencing. Where the reviewing court is unable to determine the weight given to an improperly considered factor, the cause must be remanded for resentencing. [Citations.] However, where it can be determined from the record that the weight placed on the improperly considered aggravating factor was so insignificant that it did not lead to a greater sentence, remandment is not required.” People v. Bourke (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 327, 332 , 449 N.E.2d 1338 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““And with respect to the factors in aggravation, clearly the Defendant’s conduct caused or threatened serious harm. With respect to compensation, of course, he wasn’t paid to do this. However, he did receive some of the proceeds. Three, the Defendant has a history of prior delinquency and criminal activity. That’s pretty clear. I will go into that in more detail later. Pretty clearly the sentence here would deter others from committing the same crime. *** However, when you look through the presentence investigation of the Defendant, in addition to the crimes he was found guilty of at the stipulated bench trial, he has a burglary, a theft in excess of $150 in 1980; again a burglary in 1980, a burglary in 1980 again, and the robbery out of Antioch in 1980; and he also has the sentence in Wisconsin. As far as his rehabilitative potential, I think it is pretty clear it is non-existent, his [sic] probation was terminated unsuccessfully. We tried early in his history, Riverside Hospital. Again, that appears to have done him no good. He has served time in the Department of Corrections. That hasn’t seemed to deter him or rehabilitate him. So, I clearly find there is no likelihood of rehabilitation with respect to the Defendant.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.