124 Ill. 2d 29 - In Re Corboy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Roth (1988), 145 Ill. 2d 380 - In Re Witt (1991)
4 federal appellate · 27 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 78 Ill. 2d 276 - In Re Clayter · 76 Ill. 2d 392 - In Re Friedman · 111 Ill. 2d 98 - In Re Young · 30 Ill. 2d 560 - In Re Thompson · 124 Ill. 2d 50 - In Re Ketchum
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A lawyer shall not give or lend any thing of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal except those gifts or loans which a judge or a member of his family may receive under Rule 65(C)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, except that a lawyer may make a contribution to the campaign fund of a candidate for such office.” In re Corboy, 124 Ill. 2d at 46 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows: (a) a judge may accept a gift incident to a public testimonial to him; books supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use; or an invitation to the judge and his spouse to attend a bar-related function or activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; (b) a judge or a member of his family residing in his household may accept ordinary social hospitality; a bequest, favor, or loan from a relative; a wedding or engagement gift ***; (c) a judge or a member of his family residing in his household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan, only if the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or are likely to come before him, including lawyers who practice or have practiced before the judge.” 107 Ill. 2d R. 65(C)(4).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Ordinary social hospitality’ is not a self-defining concept. It is not, however, completely opaque. We believe that ordinary social hospitality consists of those routine amenities, favors, and courtesies which are normally exchanged between friends and acquaintances, and which would not create an appearance of impropriety to a reasonable, objective observer. The test is objective, rather than subjective, and the touchstone is a careful consideration of social custom. While we cannot draw any bright lines, we believe that the following factors should be taken into account: (1) the monetary value of the gift, (2) the relationship, if any, between the judge and the donor/ lender lawyer, (3) the social practices and customs associated with gifts and loans, and (4) the particular circumstances surrounding the gifts and loans.” (In re Corboy, 124 Ill. 2d at 42-43 .)”
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.