126 Ill. App. 2d 35 - Mosley v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 136 Ill. 2d 282 - Segal v. Sacco (1990), 70 Ill. App. 3d 929 - Licka v. William A. Sales, Ltd. (1979)
3 federal appellate · 42 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although prevention of intentional delay was one of the primary reasons for the passage of Rule 4(2), the subjective test of intent is not required by the rule; rather, the criterion is one of reasonable diligence. Kohlhaas v. Morse, 36 Ill.App.2d 158 , 183 N.E.2d 16 , cited by plaintiff, lends no support to the proposition that the defendant must prove that the plaintiff intentionally delayed service. In upholding the dismissal of certain defendants the court said: ‘The unexplained failure to obtain service on a party until months after the statute had run could hardly be ‘reasonable diligence to obtain service * * *’ ”.”
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.