Duncan v. Irwin’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 103 Ill. App. 2d 445 - E. M. S. Co. v. Brandt · 22 Ill. App. 2d 179 - Veach v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · 17 Ill. App. 2d 408 - Oppenheimer Bros., Inc. v. Joyce & Co. · 41 Ill. App. 2d 37 - American Savings & Accounting Supply, Inc. v. Steinhauer · Alster v. Chicago Tastee-Freez Corp.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Paragraph (a) of this rule was adopted as Rule 304, effective January 1, 1967, to supplant former paragraph (2) of section 50 of the Civil Practice Act without change of substance but with some amplification. The supplanted statutory provision, originally adopted in 1955 (Laws 1955, p. 2238, §1) to provide an easy method for determining when certain orders were appeal-able ***, proved to be anything but easy. *** In moving the provision to the rules, the Committee revised the language slightly *** to emphasize the fact that it is not the court’s finding that makes the judgment final, but it is the court’s finding that makes this kind of a final judgment appealable. This did not change the law.” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 304(a), Committee Comments, at 157 (Smith-Hurd 1985).”
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.