13 Ill. 2d 26 - Hall v. Gillins’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

125

cited by 125 later decisions

states following

July 2023

most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 97 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 179 Ill. 2d 367 - Best v. Taylor MacHine Works (1997), 228 Ill. 2d 404 - Williams v. Manchester (2008)

6 federal appellate · 97 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 Howlett v. Doglio · Heck v. Schupp · Johnson v. Luhman · Illinois Central Railroad v. Weldon · Goddard v. Enzler

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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““In our opinion the constitutional question is not formidable when it is considered in the context of the situation that existed when the statute was originally enacted. At that time no action whatsoever was permitted for a wrongful death. The legislature took away no right when it enacted the statute. It created both the right and the remedy, and we think that its power to limit the maximum recovery in the action that it created can not be questioned. The fact that most States place no limit upon the amount recoverable, or that the legislative limit may seem unduly low when contrasted with recoveries in other actions, does not affect the power of the legislature, or the validity of its action.” 13 Ill. 2d 26, 29 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 64 Ill. 2d 109 - Seifert v. Standard Paving Co. · 56 Ill. App. 3d 111 - Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha
“"But the common law has characteristically imposed close limits upon the parties entitled to sue. If the deceased in this case had survived, for example, his injuries might have been such as to inflict upon these plaintiffs deprivations of the same kind and of equal severity. Yet the only person entitled to recover would be the injured man himself." (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 46 Ill. App. 3d 781 - Churchill v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. · 136 Ill. App. 3d 191 - Rodgers v. Consolidated RR Corp.
“[t]he term `pecuniary injuries' has received an interpretation that is broad enough to include most of the items of damage that are claimed by the plaintiffs in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 124 Ill. 2d 61 - Dralle v. Ruder · 92 Ill. 2d 530 - Elliott v. Willis

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.