113 Ill. 2d 206 - Hopkins v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably In Re Ah Robins Company Incorporated, 124 Ill. 2d 533 - In Re Petition of Village of Kildeer (1988)
4 federal appellate · 56 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 70 Ill. 2d 1 - Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package MacHinery Co. · 101 Ill. 2d 1 - Doyle v. Rhodes · 111 Ill. 2d 545 - In Re Support of Pearson · 22 Ill. 2d 23 - Cunningham v. Brown · Howlett v. Doglio
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here 2 or more persons are subject to liability in tort arising out of the same injury to person or property, ... there is a right of contribution among them, even though judgment has not been entered against any or all of them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Plaintiff's attempt to use the Contribution Act to recover a portion of the losses he incurred in reaching settlements for the damages he caused by his intoxication amounts to an attempt to circumvent the statutory bar of the Dramshop Act. Recognizing that a direct route to recovery is unavailable, plaintiff seeks an indirect route by way of the Contribution Act. But because plaintiff is barred from direct recovery under the Dramshop Act, he is barred as well from recovery under the Contribution Act." Id. at 212 , 100 Ill.Dec. 579 , 497 N.E.2d 757 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raab v. Frank“[the] limitation on the class of plaintiffs under the Dramshop Act has been referred to as the innocent-suitor concept and has been applied to deny recovery to injured third persons who are guilty of complicity in the intoxication of the individual directly causing their injuries”
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.