127 Ill. 2d 112 - Martinez v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 127 Ill. 2d 122 - Gibellina v. Handley (1989), 137 Ill. 2d 371 - Womick v. Jackson County Nursing Home (1990)
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 66 Ill. 2d 616 - Aranda v. Hobart Manufacturing Corp. · 112 Ill. 2d 273 - O'CONNELL v. St. Francis Hospital · 116 Ill. 2d 63 - Catlett v. Novak · 122 Ill. 2d 41 - Muskat v. Sternberg · 106 Ill. 2d 487 - Dillie v. Bisby
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the action as a whole or as to any unserved defendant may be dismissed without prejudice. If the failure to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service occurs after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the dismissal shall be with prejudice. In either case the dismissal may be made on the application of any defendant or on the court’s own motion.” (107 Ill. 2d R. 103(b).)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““According to the O’Connell standard, as developed, the circuit judge is to consider service after refiling in light of the entire history of the case. He cannot disregard obvious diligence on the part of the plaintiff after refiling. The determination of diligence must be made in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (Martinez, 127 Ill. 2d at 121-22 , 535 N.E.2d at 858 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Aranda , the complaint was filed six months after the injury, and not on the last day of the limitations period. The complaint was put on a “no progress call” and dismissed for want of prosecution on January 29,1974, more than two months before the running of the statute of limitations. On July 12, 1974, about 5 months after the case was dismissed for want of prosecution, and only three months after the statute of limitations had expired, the ease was refiled and service of summons was had 13 days later ... The language of our Rule 103(b) [ ] clearly requires that the plaintiff’s diligence in obtaining service of process after the running of the statute of limitations must be considered in determining whether the complaint is to be dismissed with preju-dice____ When this court held in Aranda that the plaintiff had a right to refile, that holding had to be viewed in the context of that ease, where the original action was dismissed for want of prosecution before the statute of limitations had run, and the action was refiled within a few months and service was promptly had.”
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.