123 Ill. App. 2d 157 - Warp v. Whitmore’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably 64 Ill. 2d 303 - Mizowek v. De Franco (1976), 122 Ill. App. 3d 419 - Turner v. Chicago Transit Authority (1984)
5 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.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are in agreement with defendant’s position that arguments, which attempt to place before the jury a mathematical formula for arriving at damages for future pain and suffering based upon fixed units of time, are improper, (Caley v. Manicke, 24 Ill.2d 390 , 182 NE2d 206 ; Jensen v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., 24 Ill.2d 383 , 182 NE2d 211 ) but we are not here confronted with an argument of the nature as those in the cases cited by defendant. “After arguing that one of the plaintiffs should be awarded a specific amount of damages for costs expended, lost work time, past pain and suffering, etc., her counsel suggested that she be allowed for future pain and suffering the sum of $100 per year for the number of years of her life expectancy. In making this argument, counsel carefully noted that the sums stated by him were only his suggestions, which could be high or low depending on what the jury determined to be just compensation. “Secondly, no objection was made by the defendant at the time the argument was made to the jury. Finally, counsel for the plaintiff did not, as was the situation in the cases cited by the defendant, challenge defense counsel to offer a better ‘scheme’ for arriving at damages.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence of drinking of intoxicants will not, of itself, support a charge of intoxication, and plaintiff here did not introduce any evidence of intoxication apart from drinking.””
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.