Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Ill. App. 2d 289 - Dillon v. Nathan

10 Ill. App. 2d 289 - Dillon v. Nathan’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
March 1996
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably 76 Ill. App. 3d 898 - Prince v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1979), Berge v. Harris (1969)

33 state decisions

10019561960197019801990decided

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 4 Ill. 2d 273 - Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co. · Grasse v. Dealer's Transport Co. · Howlett v. Doglio · O'Brien v. Chicago City Railway Co. · Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses, Inc. v. City of Chicago

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(b) Where the injury or death for which compensation is payable under this Act was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability for damages on the part of some person other than his employer to pay damages, then legal proceedings may be taken against such other person to recover damages notwithstanding such employer’s payment of or liability to pay compensation under this Act. In such case, however, if the action against such other person is brought by the injured employee or his personal representative and judgment is obtained and paid, or settlement is made with such other person, either with or without suit, then from the amount received by such employee or personal representative there shall be paid to the employer the amount of compensation paid or to be paid by him to such employee or personal representative * s”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The phraseology ‘personal representative’ as used in that subparagraph (b) with respect to suits against third parties, amounts received therein, and workmen’s compensation payments received, which the appellants argue means and includes a widow or child of a deceased employee, has, we believe, instead, its ordinary, commonly accepted meaning and connotation, and means simply the administrator, or executor, or party in like official capacity, of a deceased employee, or the conservator or guardian of an incompetent or minor employee, there being nothing in the context or surrounding circumstances to indicate a contrary intention. See: Johnson v. Van Epps, 1884, 110 Ill. 551 . Elsewhere in the Workmen’s Compensation Act the terminology ‘personal representative’ or ‘legal representative’ is used in various places in connection with and as clearly distinct from widow, children, beneficiaries, heirs, or next of kin, and as clearly meaning the official representative of a deceased or incompetent or minor employee: Ch. 48, Ill. Rev. Stats., 1953, para. 138.1(b)!, 138.6(b), 138.7(i), 138.9, 138.19(j), 138.23. There is no reason to believe ‘personal representative’ as used in par. 138.5 means any thing different from what it means elsewhere in the Act or anything other than, as it usually dbes, the administrator, executor, or party in like official capacity, of a deceased employee, or the conservator or guardian of an incompetent or minor employee.” ( 10 Ill. App. 2d 289, 297 , 135 N”
    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.