102 Ill. 2d 278 - Cope v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 163 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 136 Ill. 2d 132 - Ward v. K Mart Corp. (1990), 171 Ill. 2d 378 - Barnett v. Zion Park District (1996)
8 federal appellate · 163 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 5 Ill. 2d 614 - Kahn v. James Burton Co. · 73 Ill. 2d 316 - Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville · City of Pekin v. McMahon · Gustafson v. Consumers Sales Agency, Inc. · 63 Ill. App. 3d 378 - McClure v. Suter
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This rule however does not impose a per se duty upon owners or parties in possession and control of premises to remedy all conditions on their land. It is well settled that if the condition complained of presents obvious risks which children would be expected to appreciate and avoid, there is no duty to remedy that condition. The rationale for this rule is that, since children are expected to avoid dangers which are obvious, there is no reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. The law then is that foreseeability of harm to the child is the test for assessing liability; but there can be no recovery for injuries caused by a danger found to be obvious.” ( 102 Ill. 2d 278, 286 , 464 N.E.2d 1023 .)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court in Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 316, 326 , reiterated the rule announced in Kahn. It stated that the customary principles of ordinary negligence must be applied to determine the liability of owners or parties in possession or control of premises upon which a child is injured. The court also stated that a duty which would not be imposed under ordinary negligence will be imposed where an owner or party in possession or control of premises ‘knows or should know that children frequent the premises and if the cause of the child’s injury was a dangerous condition on the premises.’ ( 73 Ill. 2d 316, 326 .) It reasoned that ‘[i]f both these prerequisites are met, it is deemed that harm to children is sufficiently foreseeable for the law to impel an owner or occupier of land to remedy the condition.’ ( 73 Ill. 2d 316, 326 .) The court in Corcoran defined a dangerous condition as one which is likely to cause injury to children generally who, by reason of their age and immaturity, would not be expected to comprehend and avoid the attendant risks. In such an instance, there is a duty to remedy the condition.” 102 Ill. 2d 278, 286 , 464 N.E.2d 1023 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Our courts and the legislature have traditionally regarded public swimming pools differently from other bodies of water. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 111½, par. 1201 et seq. ) The law in Illinois does place a duty upon private operators of public swimming pools or public bathing resorts to take precautions for the safety of their patrons. As expressed by the court in Decatur [Amusement Park Co. v. Porter (1907), 137 Ill.App. 448 ], it is inevitable that injuries will occur at public bathing facilities, and the law imposes a duty to guard against the character of accidents which `common knowledge and experience teach are liable to befall those engaging in the sport which [defendant] had invited the public to participate in.' ( Decatur Amusement Park Co. v. Porter (1907), 137 Ill. App. 448, 452 .)" Cope, 102 Ill.2d at 288 , 80 Ill.Dec. at 45 , 464 N.E.2d at 1028 .”
2 later decisions 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.