Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 Ill. 2d 445 - Kingston v. Turner

115 Ill. 2d 445 - Kingston v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 159 Ill. 2d 137 - Congregation of the Passion v. Touche Ross & Co. (1994), 156 Ill. 2d 483 - People v. Cloutier (1993)

77 state decisions

46019871990200020102020decided

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 Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · 33 Ill. 2d 316 - Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co. · 74 Ill. 2d 379 - Saldana v. Wirtz Cartage Co. · 40 Ill. 2d 522 - The People v. Williams · 108 Ill. App. 3d 891 - People v. Teague

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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Prior to its amendment in 1971, the Act provided that every person who is injured in person or property by an intoxicated person has a right of action against any person who, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, ‘causes the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such person.’ (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 43, par. 135.) Under this provision recovery could be founded merely on a showing of the resultant intoxication and the consumption of some liquor in defendant’s tavern. (See Comment, The Illinois Dram Shop Act: The Effect of the 1971 Amendment, 74 U. Ill. L.F. 466, 469 (1974).) The essential element of a plaintiff’s case was that injury had been sustained in consequence of the intoxication of another and that the alcoholic liquors served by the defendant dramshop ‘contributed in some degree, no matter how slight,’ to the intoxication. Osborn v. Leuffgen (1942), 381 Ill. 295, 298 . The 1971 amendment to article VI, section 14, eliminated the ‘in whole or in part’ language from the statute. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 43, par. 135.) While the amendment was not designed to alter the ‘legislative intent to place the responsibility for damages occasioned by the use of alcohol on those who profit from its sale’ (Comment, The Illinois Dram Shop Act: The Effect of the 1971 Amendment, 74 U. Ill. L.F. 466, 477 (1974)), it was intended to limit liability and curb the widespread abuse occurring under this provision (see Comment, The Illinois Dram Shop Act: The Effec”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The purpose of voir dire is to assure the selection of an impartial panel of jurors who are free from bias or prejudice. [Citations.] Under our Supreme Court Rule 234 [citation], the primary responsibility for initiating and conducting the voir dire examination lies with the trial judge [citation], and the scope and extent of the exam rests within his discretion [citation]. An abuse of this discretion will be found only if, after reviewing the record, it is determined that the judge's conduct thwarted the selection of an impartial jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “"In a civil case, it is within the discretion of the trial court to allow or refuse a jury’s request for clarification of instructions. [Citation.] Having correctly instructed the jury, it is not error for the trial judge to leave standing the original instructions. [Citation.] However the trial court’s discretion gives way to a duty to respond where the original instructions are incomplete and the jurors are clearly confused. [Citation.]” Kingston v. Turner, 115 Ill. 2d 445, 463 , 505 N.E.2d 320, 328 (1987).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.