People v. Hampton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Regular and ongoing control over a vehicle might be established through proof that the defendant owns or regularly drives the vehicle.”
• “As this is a constructive possession case, the State had to prove that defendant (1) had knowledge of the presence of the weapon and (2) had immediate and exclusive control over the area where the weapon was found.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Ingram
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2009-04-21· cited 54×
• People v. Nesbit
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2010-02-11· cited 30×
• People v. McIntyre
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2011-12-14· cited 24×
• People v. Welch
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2025-09-26· cited 15×
• People v. Hill
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-05-04· cited 6×
• People v. Carpenter
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2024-03-29· cited 6×
• People v. Stewart
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2006-05-16· cited 3×
• People v. Woodhouse
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2026-03-31· cited 3×
• People v. Feliciano
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2023-03-01

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Collins
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1985-02-22· cited 2,507×
• People v. Smith
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2000-05-25· cited 153×
• The PEOPLE v. Nettles
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1961-11-30· cited 152×
• People v. McCarter
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2003-06-13· cited 78×
• People v. Grant
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2003-05-22· cited 52×
• People v. Bailey
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-09-04· cited 51×
• People v. Davis
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1977-07-13· cited 34×