1 Ill. App. 2d 36 - Larson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold Commodities, Inc. (1985), Harbor Insurance v. Continental Bank Corp. (1990)
11 federal appellate · 35 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 Railway Company v. McCarthy · Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Cassidy · Gibson v. Brown · Duffy v. . O'Donovan · County of Schuyler v. Missouri Bridge & Iron Co.
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the opinion expressed on a legal question is one casually reached by the court on an issue unrelated to the essence of the controversy or based on hypothetical facts, then it is obiter dictum. ... It is often stated that all except that which is necessary to the decision of a case is obiter dictum. This is misleading, for nothing but the bare finding of the court is absolutely necessary to its decision as between the parties. For the purpose of legal precedent, we must look to all the issues presented by the facts of the case and to the legal principles applied by the court in the final determination of those issues. Our Supreme Court has made a distinction between judicial dictum and obiter dictum, meaning that a legal principle deliberately passed upon by a court establishes a precedent. Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Cassidy, 275 Ill. 462, 470 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a court has before it various grounds urged for reversal [or as in our case affirmance] and it decides that a certain number are valid, it does not follow that because the first ground would have been sufficient for reversal [or affirmance], the other grounds do not deserve equal recognition as the basis for the court’s judgment.” Larson v. Johnson (1953), 1 Ill. App. 2d 36, 40 , 116 N.E.2d 187 . 4 We emphasize that the employee’s negligent”
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.