People v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• “We are unaware of a decision of a court of review in which the fact that the proceeds from a fíne or penalty is earmarked for a particular fund serving a governmental purpose has affected the validity of the fine or penalty”
• \We are unaware of a decision of a court of review in which the fact that the proceeds from a fine or penalty is earmarked for a particular fund serving a governmental purpose has affected the validity of the fine or penalty\
• \We are unaware of a decision of a court of review in which the fact that the proceeds from a fine or penalty is earmarked for a particular fund serving a governmental purpose has affected the validity of the fine or penalty\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Jones
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2006-12-21· cited 391×
• People v. Rodriguez
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2005-11-03· cited 22×
• People v. Jamison
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2006-04-12· cited 17×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Rummel v. Estelle
  Supreme Court· 1980-03-18· cited 2,234×
• Crocker v. Finley
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1984-02-01· cited 100×
• People Ex Rel. Carey v. Bentivenga
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1981-01-20· cited 78×
• Boynton v. Kusper
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1986-02-21· cited 43×
• Mlade v. Finley
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1983-02-10· cited 28×
• People v. Williams
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1986-04-15· cited 25×
• People v. Handzik
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1951-11-27· cited 23×
• People v. Bennett
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1986-06-10· cited 14×
• City of Decatur v. Curry
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1976-12-03· cited 9×