Van Stan v. Fancy Colours & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 563 · 1997
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lisa Hawkins v. Pepsico Incorporated American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation Incorporated (2000), Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc. (2004)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 66 Ill. 2d 85 - Public Finance Corp. v. Davis · 126 Ill. 2d 78 - McGrath v. Fahey · Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co. · 161 Ill. 2d 374 - Doe v. Calumet City · 126 Ill. App. 3d 157 - Heying v. Simonaitis
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To this end, we will not find error unless the court’s decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have based its decision .... ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, (2) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that his conduct would inflict severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant's conduct did cause severe emotional distress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities' do not amount to extreme and outrageous conduct, nor does conduct 'characterized by malice or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.'”
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.