109 Ill. 2d 236 - Wright v. Mr. Quick, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably 125 Ill. 2d 203 - Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard (1988), 138 Ill. 2d 510 - Lamkin v. Towner (1990)
3 federal appellate · 45 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 Wagner v. Kepler · 97 Ill. 2d 187 - Provident Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Realty Centre, Ltd. · West Chicago Masonic Ass'n v. Cohn · 88 Ill. App. 3d 308 - Gilbreath v. Greenwalt · 107 Ill. App. 3d 855 - Dial v. Mihalic
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The basic rationale for lessor immunity has been that the lease is a conveyance of property which ends the lessor's control over the premises, a prerequisite to the imposition of tort liability.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mere fact that Mr. Quick, as lessee under the prime lease, promised its lessor that it would maintain the premises created no additional tort duty in favor of third CT Page 14669 persons. While it was in possession of the property, Mr. Quick's tort duty to third persons existed independently of any contractual arrangement. "[S]ince the tenant's liability to third persons is based on his negligence, it is not increased by the fact that he has expressly covenanted to repair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once Mr. Quick wholly demised the property to Great Eight, the tort duty fell only upon Great Eight as tenant in possession unless Mr. Quick actually agreed with the sublessee that, as sublessor, Mr. Quick would maintain the premises. The record discloses no such agreement."”
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.