101 Ill. 2d 1 - Doyle v. Rhodes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 213 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 309 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[W]here 2 or more persons are subject to liability in tort arising out of the same injury to person or property, or the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them, even though judgment has not been entered against any or all of them." Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 70, par. 302(a).”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 104 Ill. 2d 317 - Rakowski v. Lucente · 163 Ill. App. 3d 221 - Northrup v. Allister Construction Co.

2. ““In this connection, however, we feel compelled to invite the attention of the parties to the possible relevance of the provisions of section 5(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.5(b)). *** The extent to which any right of contribution from the employer under the Contribution Act may impact upon this right of recoupment by the employer has not been raised by the parties in their pleadings and consequently not briefed. At this point, absent the assistance of any guidance by the third-party plaintiff and the employer, and bearing in mind that this case is still at the pleading stage, we are not prepared to indicate how this aspect of the Compensation Act may affect the operation of the Contribution Act or what adjustments will be necessary because of the recoupment provision. Nevertheless, we caution that some accommodation between these two statutes may be in order.” (Doyle, 101 Ill. 2d at 14-15 .)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 146 Ill. 2d 155 - Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp. · 776 F. Supp. 368 - Doran v. Corn Products-U.S.

3. “"The language relied on by the employer is neither unambiguous nor should it be construed in the way the employer seeks to apply it. The Workers' Compensation Act provides employers with a defense against any action that may be asserted against them in tort, but that defense is an affirmative one whose elements—the employment relationship and the nexus between the employment and the injury—must be established by the employer, and which is waived if not asserted by him in the trial court. [Citations.] Thus, the plaintiff may recover a tort judgment against his employer for a work-related injury if the employer fails to raise the defense the Workers' Compensation Act gives him (see Rhodes v. Industrial Com. (1982), 92 Ill.2d 467, 471 , 66 Ill.Dec. 83 , 442 N.E.2d 509 ), and on occasion the employer may choose not to raise it in the hope that the plaintiff will be unable to prove negligence to a jury's satisfaction. The potential for tort liability exists until the defense is established." Doyle, 101 Ill.2d at 10-11 , 77 Ill.Dec. 759 , 461 N.E.2d 382 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 264 Ill. App. 3d 111 - Urbas v. Saintco, Inc. · 146 Ill. 2d 155 - Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp.