14 Ill. App. 2d 5 - Hulke v. International Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 151 Ill. 2d 445 - Maple v. Gustafson (1992), 204 Ill. 2d 1 - Snelson v. Kamm (2003)
13 federal appellate · 120 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 Lavender v. Kurn · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Neering v. I.C.R.R. Co. · Lindroth v. Walgreen Co. · 4 Ill. 2d 273 - Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co.
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is contended by defendant that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of the existence of an agency or employee relationship between Bunge's and Skelly with respect to the particular transaction out of which plaintiffs alleged their injuries arose. The law is clear that generally a master is liable for the acts of his servant and that a principal is liable for the acts of his agent, but that generally neither is liable for the acts of an independent contractor. Usually an agent is paid differently, has more freedom of action, and requires less supervision than a servant. An agent usually has more authority, works alone and has some discretion, not being subject to constant supervision and control of the principal. Unless the relationship is so clear as to be undisputed, the relationship between principal and agent is a question of fact for the jury to determine from all the evidence. The Supreme Court of Illinois has frequently stated that the right or duty to supervise and control, and not the exercise of the right, determines the relationship. The relationship of principal and agent exists if the principal has the right or duty to supervise and control and to terminate the relationship at any time, even though he does not exercise that right. Hartley v. Red Ball Transit Co., 344 Ill. 534, 539 ; Lawrence v. Industrial Com., 391 Ill. 80, 87 ; Darner v. Colby, 375 Ill. 558 ; Shannon v. Nightingale, 321 Ill. 168 . [22] While defendant Skelly places particula”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We would further add that the weight of the modem authorities is against these cases, and in favor of the more reasonable rule, that where the release of one of several obligors shows upon its face, and in connection with the surrounding circumstances, that it was the intention of the parties not to release the co-obligors, such intention, as in the case of other written contracts, shall be carried out, and to that end the instrument shall be construed as a covenant not to sue.” ( 44 Ill. 405, 413-14 . Also see Van Meter v. Gurney (1st Dist. 1929), 251 Ill. App. 184, 187 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The proper approach in considering instructions is not whether each individual instruction is mechanically correct so as not to be subject to some technical objection, but whether or not the instructions when considered as a whole were sufficiently clear so as not to mislead the jury.””
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.