109 Ill. App. 3d 472 - Cornell v. Langland’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 138 Ill. 2d 404 - Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. (1990), 114 Ill. App. 3d 703 - Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad (1983)
12 federal appellate · 34 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 74 Ill. 2d 172 - Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. · 70 Ill. 2d 1 - Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package MacHinery Co. · 70 Ill. 2d 51 - Buehler v. Whalen · 94 Ill. App. 3d 915 - Jensen v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad · 107 Ill. App. 3d 654 - Froud v. Celotex Corporation
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It has long been established in this State that punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded when torts are committed with fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or when the defendant acts willfully, or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others ( Consolidated Coal Co. v. Haenni (1893), 146 Ill. 614 [ 35 N.E. 162 ].) Where punitive damages may be assessed, they are allowed in the nature of punishment and as a warning and example to deter the defendant and others from committing like offenses in the future. ( Eshelman v. Rawalt (1921), 298 Ill. 192, 197 [ 131 N.E. 675 ].)"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The awarding of punitive damages originated as a means of punishing defendants in instances of malice, oppression or gross fraud, i.e., where the manner of performance made the conduct outrageous.”
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.