100 Ill. App. 2d 199 - Schenk v. Schenk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 state decisions

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

1. “"[S]ome jurisdictions have held that the immunity rule has not been applied to property rights, contract rights, an emancipated child, wrongful death actions, suits between brothers and sisters, a stepfather, an adoptive parent, or a grandparent, to cases where the child is injured in the course of a business rather than a personal activity, and in suits involving willful, wanton, intentional or criminal conduct. If harmony and unity in the family is the public policy protecting the rule, it would seem to be present in these areas. * * *. From these observations, it is easy to conclude that the justification for the rule based on harmony, cooperation and family affection and its preservation is an excuse rather than a solid foundation for the rule. It would thus follow that since the reason for the rule is nonexistent, the rule itself should be interred. We do not reach this result. * * * [T]here are no impelling reasons for eroding or emasculating the family immunity rule for conduct of either parent or child arising out of the family relationship and directly connected with the family purposes and objectives in those cases where it may be said that the carelessness, inadvertence or negligence is but the product of the hazards incident to inter-family living and common to every family. In such instances the immunity doctrine is neither unjust, unreasonable nor without a sound and solid foundation. * * *. The statement of these principles, however, does not preclude a holding”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 288 Ill. App. 3d 510 - Commerce Bank v. Augsburger · Setinc v. Masny

2. ““From the time, however, of its general acceptance in this country, it has undergone a general erosion like the all-day sucker in the hands of a small child until there isn’t much left but the stick itself.” 241 N.E.2d, at 14 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 Ariz. App. 10 - Streenz v. Streenz

3. “* * * this policy might be such justification to prevent suits for mere negligence within the scope of the parental relationship * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Ill. App. 3d 844 - Johnson v. Myers