101 Ill. App. 3d 639 - Taylor v. Hocker’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership (1996), Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon (1987)
8 federal appellate · 55 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 Neering v. I.C.R.R. Co. · 78 Ill. 2d 204 - Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority · 82 Ill. 2d 40 - Joiner v. Benton Community Bank · 56 Ill. 2d 95 - Boyd v. Racine Currency Exchange, Inc. · Cornpropst v. Sloan
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally, relying on Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 204 , 399 N.E.2d 596 , the plaintiffs maintain that defendants had a duty based upon a voluntary contractual undertaking. In Pippin, our supreme court held that a security services corporation was liable for harm suffered by criminal attacks on premises owned and operated by the Chicago Housing Authority where the corporation specifically agreed to provide ‘ “*** protective services for the purpose of guarding [the Authority’s] properties *** and protection of persons thereon.” ’ (Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 204, 207 , 399 N.E.2d 596, 599 .) Here, the plaintiffs’ claim is based upon the ‘Common Area Charge’ clause of the lease defendants entered into with the lessees of the various stores in the shopping center. This provision placed responsibility upon defendants for maintaining security personnel in, on, and about the Common Areas. It is evident that the undertakings alleged in Pippin and in the present case are dissimilar. In the instant case, when broadly interpreted, the lease provision relied upon by the plaintiffs does not, as in Pippin, provide for the protection of third persons from criminal attacks.” 101 Ill. App. 3d 639, 643-44 , 428 N.E.2d 665 -66.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““where there are factual allegations indicating an awareness on the part of the owners or operators of a history of assaults in the parking facilities provided to business invitees [citation], or where the facts suggest notice that the area is frequented by undesirable characters [citation], liability may arise and summary judgment would be inappropriate.” ( 101 Ill. App. 3d 639, 643 , 428 N.E.2d 662, 665 .)”
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.